This case illustrates how the Judiciary will be more prepared to bear in mind the underlying objectives of the Civil Justice Reform, one of which being that costs should not be incurred unless they are necessary, when granting leave for parties to adduce expert evidence.

This matter related to a claim by the plaintiff for damages for personal injuries suffered in a traffic accident. Judgment on liability was entered and the only remaining issue was the quantum of damages. The plaintiff sought leave to adduce expert evidence of a rehabilitation consultant to show that home care services, as opposed to nursing home care, was reasonable so that damages would be sought along that line.

Master Roy Yu granted leave to the plaintiff to have a rehabilitation expert to comment on the resources required for home care services, and highlighted the importance of the parties identifying precisely the issues to which the expert evidence will relate.

Practice Direction 5.2 on case management requires the party adducing expert evidence to, inter alia, identify the issue to which the expert evidence will relate. Such an approach allows the expert to focus on the issues, and hence reduce the time incurred in preparing reports, which is in line with the spirit of the Civil Justice Reform that costs should not be incurred unless they are necessary. Whilst Master Yu acknowledged that the said Practice Direction is not applicable to personal injury cases, he emphasised that the rationale behind it should be borrowed in personal injury cases, especially for non-medical reports.

CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2009] 20 CJRA.