In Dana UK Axle Ltd v Freudenberg FST GmbH, Smith J of the Technology and Construction Court handed down a forceful judgment in which she granted a mid-trial application to exclude the defendant’s technical expert evidence.
This decision, albeit arising from a particular set of circumstances, provides a helpful reminder to parties, lawyers and experts involved in litigation of the importance of compliance with CPR 35, and in particular, of ensuring equality of arms between experts.
In Part 1, I discussed the rights which clients (usually ex-clients) have under the Solicitors Act 1974 to ask the court to check whether bills they receive from their existing or former solicitors, are fair and reasonable.
In Mustard v Flower [2021] EWHC 846 (QB), Master Davison considered whether a defendant in a personal injury claim could amend a defence to include a contingent and provisional argument that, if the court found at trial that the claimant had knowingly exaggerated symptoms, the defendant could reserve its position to later apply for a ruling of fundamental dishonesty and seek dismissal of the claim, plus costs sanctions provided for at section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
