Cases - Oxley v Penwarden
Record details
- Name
- Oxley v Penwarden
- Date
- [2001]
- Citation
- 2 Lloyd's Rep Med
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Expert witness - Civil Procedure Rules
- Summary
-
In a medical negligence case the judge stated his view that the parties should agree a SJE vascular surgeon on the issue of causation. If the parties failed to agree, the court would appoint the SJE itself. Neither side was content with this approach.
The Court of Appeal called attention to the note attached to CPR 35.7:
'There is no presumption in favour of the appointment of a single joint expert. The object is to do away with the calling of multiple experts where, given the nature of the issue over which the parties are at odds, that is not justified.'
The court referred to the general advantages of SJEs mentioned in the note 'of reducing costs and delay and [to] strengthen the impartial role of experts'.
However, in a case like this
'it was necessary for the parties to have the opportunity of investigating causation through an expert of their own choice and, further, to have the opportunity of calling that evidence before the court'.
If the parties could not agree, the court would have to and the judge's choice might well decide an essential question in the case without the opportunity of challenge.