Does Edwards-Tubb mark the end of “expert shopping”, ask Johnathan Payne & Catherine Urquhart
Judges have long expressed the view that the practice of “expert shopping” goes against the spirit of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), under which parties are encouraged to adopt a “cards on the table” approach to pre-action conduct and litigation.
Nevertheless, some claimants obtain a report from expert A under the pre-action protocol but then decide not to rely upon it and instead put forward a report from expert B. The defendant, unsurprisingly, then tends to be more suspicious of expert B and consequently becomes less likely to settle, thus thwarting the intention of the pre-action protocol.
This essentially was the situation that arose in Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon PLC [2011] EWCA Civ 136, [2011] All ER (D) 276 (Feb) and the Court of Appeal unanimously held that if a party wishes to rely upon expert B in such circumstances, the usual order should be that he can do so only on condition that he discloses the report
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
