Replacing Experts in Legal Proceedings: A Case Study of Avantage (Cheshire) Limited v GB Building Solutions Limited
In a recent case before the High Court, Mrs Justice O’Farrell considered an application by claimants in a construction dispute to replace two appointed experts. The claimants sought to replace a forensic scientist and a fire engineer due to various reasons, including illness and lack of confidence in the expert’s abilities.
The defendants did not oppose the replacement of the forensic scientist but requested that certain documents be disclosed as a condition of the replacement. O’Farrell ruled that there was no impropriety in the claimants’ request to replace the expert and refused the defendants’ request for extensive disclosure of the expert’s documents. However, she did order disclosure of certain relevant documents to ensure fairness in the proceedings.
Regarding the replacement of the fire engineer, the defendants opposed the application, alleging expert-shopping and lack of proper explanation for the substitution. O’Farrell allowed the substitution, noting that the claimants were transparent about their dissatisfaction with the expert and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the change. She ordered limited disclosure of certain documents but declined to order disclosure of all correspondence, citing practical difficulties and the claimants’ privilege.
This case serves as a reminder of the legal principles and considerations courts take into account when deciding on applications to replace experts. The courts will weigh all circumstances and adhere to the overriding objective of ensuring fairness and efficiency in proceedings. While disclosure conditions may be imposed, the courts will be cautious not to infringe on legal professional privilege unless necessary to prevent misconduct or ensure the expert’s contribution is available to all parties.
Legal experts Masood Ahmed and Lal Akhter provide valuable insights into the implications of this case, highlighting the importance of understanding the court’s approach to expert evidence in litigation.
