Binod Kumar Sharma v Edith Clara Maria Lovegrove
[2023] EWHC 3598 (Ch)
Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Martin Warren
19 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 14
Court of Appeal
A worker sued his employer for injury. He asked late to add a new type of expert to the case. The court decided that rules about missing deadlines didn't apply here because there wasn't a specific penalty for his lateness. While he should have asked earlier, the court let him add the expert since the trial was already postponed and the new expert wouldn't cause further delay.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Warren, employed by Yesss Electrical Ltd, claimed workplace injury on 29 September 2016.
- •Proceedings were issued in October 2019, valuing the claim at £140,000.
- •The defendant denied liability and alleged fundamental dishonesty regarding care costs.
- •CCMC directions in October 2020 included expert evidence from orthopaedic surgeons only.
- •Mr. Quaille's fourth report (September 2020) suggested a pain management expert.
- •In February 2022, claimant sought permission to rely on pain management and psychological expert reports.
- •The trial date was vacated due to witness unavailability (an administrative error).
- •DJ Stewart granted permission for pain management expert evidence but refused psychological expert evidence.
- •The appeal concerned whether the application was for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.8 and r3.9.
Legal Principles
Whether a late application for expert evidence in a new discipline is an application for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.8 and r3.9.
CPR r3.8, r3.9, Denton and Mitchell
Relief from sanctions applies to witness statements (CPR r32.10) and should analogously apply to late expert evidence.
S J Moore (Jeweller) Ltd v Squibb Group [2018] EWHC 2731
Late expert evidence is not automatically a matter of relief from sanctions.
T (Child) v Imperial College Healthcare Trust [2020] EWHC 1147 (QB)
The overriding objective (r1.1(2)(e) and (f)) emphasizes efficient litigation at proportionate cost.
CPR r1.1(2)(e) and (f), Denton, Mitchell
Rules 3.8 and 3.9 apply only when a sanction exists; they don't create sanctions.
Lufthansa Technik v Panasonic Avionics Corp [2023] EWCA Civ 1273
Implied sanctions exist in limited circumstances (e.g., notices of appeal and respondent’s notices).
Sayers v Clarke Walker [2002] EWCA Civ 645, Altomart v Salford Estates [2014] EWCA Civ 1408, FXF v Ishinryu Karate Association [2023] EWCA Civ 891
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The application for expert evidence was not an application for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.8 and r3.9 because no sanction was triggered by the claimant's breaches of the allocation order and the CCMC order. Even considering the overriding objective, the judge's decision to allow the evidence was within his wide case management discretion, as the trial date had been vacated.