Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
A number of amendments to the CPR that will implement the Jackson costs reforms are being held over until October 2012. That date is set to be the “big bang” for implementation of a package of reforms.
One of the apparent amendments, as recently reported in the New Law Journal, is a rule change to attempt to control expert fees. This is the approved new wording with the amendments in bold:
“35.4
1) No party may call an expert or put in evidence an expert’s report without the court’s permission.
(2) When parties apply for permission they must provide an estimate of the costs of the proposed expert evidence and identify –
(a) the field in which expert evidence is required and the issues which the expert evidence will address; and
(b) where practicable, the name of the proposed expert.
(3) If permission is granted it shall be in relation only to the expert named or the field identified under paragraph (2). The order granting permission may specify the issues which the expert evidence should address.“
Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
Presumably if the report is obtained under the MRO scheme, e.g. GP report, this wouldn’t be necessary?
Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
Presumably the costs of finding the appropriate expert will be recoverable and if the expert is limited to addressing only certain issues you can imagine the argument over whether or not he/she has exeeded their remit.
Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
Considering how parties presently ignore the pre action protocol concerning experts, I can see why they are going to be controlled by the court instead. Can Defendants in particular learn that they just can’t ask a court to permit reliance on a report which they instructed without any attempt of any sort to comply with the protocol?
Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
Delayed until April 2013 apparently:
http://lawsocietymedia.org.uk/Press.aspx?ID=1557&utm_source=emailhosts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PU+-+01%2F12%2F11
Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/25/d110586513/htdocs/gwslaw/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
to D-notice; misses the point I’m afraid
to AB; I can see Defendants argueing this is funding, and not payable per MOTO
generally, any enterprising Med Agency getting wind of this could tie up the market in approved fees by the court and in organising attendances etc