Notes from hearing: CMC, managing experts, evidence and budgets in personal injury claims- DJ Goodwill-

30 Jan

A recent Case Management Conference (CMC) highlighted the complexity often found in personal‑injury litigation, even before a case reaches trial. With both parties represented by experienced counsel, the hearing focused on expert evidence, witness requirements, allocation, and costs management.

Background to the Claim

This is a Part 7 personal‑injury claim that has been transferred down to the county court. The judge explored whether another court centre might be more appropriate, discussing potential transfer destinations including Hull or Leeds.

The case involves issues of causation, quantum, and an employment‑related element, as the claimant asserts that their injuries led to a change in employment.

Key Issues at the CMC

Expert Evidence

A central issue concerned whether further psychiatric or psychological expert evidence should be allowed.

The claimant argued there is an evidential basis for such evidence.
The defendant argued psychological injury had not previously been mentioned and questioned the need for it.
The judge referred to the Part 35 three‑stage test for permission to rely on expert evidence, noting the court’s duty to restrict such evidence unless justified.

There was also discussion about:

Orthopaedic expertise
The need for psychiatric input
Whether such evidence would help narrow issues
The importance of proportionality

The judge noted that permission might not be granted if the evidential platform was insufficient.

Witness Evidence

The claimant proposed four witnesses, including two family members and individuals connected to employment issues.
The defendant questioned the number and necessity of these witnesses.

The judge recognised that witness statements are significant in establishing the claimant’s narrative, especially regarding:

Loss of amenities
Change of employment
Impact of injuries

Case Allocation and Directions

The judge confirmed:

Allocation of the case
A proposed date for future directions
A need for clarity on experts, including identification and fees
That the defendant was still determining who their expert might be

There was also discussion about disclosure, particularly around loss of earnings, with the judge stressing the claimant’s duty to provide supporting evidence.

Costs and Budgets

Costs formed a substantial part of the hearing, with each side challenging the other’s figures.

Key points included:

Concerns about disproportionate budgets
Arguments over expert fees
Discussion of solicitor and counsel fees for trial preparation and attendance
The need to ensure costs remain reasonable and proportionate given the claim’s value

The defendant described the claimant’s budget as excessive, while the claimant emphasised access to justice and the need for appropriate expert input.

The judge indicated that some reductions were necessary but not to the extent the defendant sought.

ADR and Further Steps

Alternative Dispute Resolution was raised as part of the case‑management process.
The judge also dealt with timetabling issues, including:

Pre‑Trial Review (PTR)
Final trial preparations
Clarifying expert involvement

Conclusion

This CMC demonstrated how personal‑injury claims often involve intricate case‑management decisions long before evidence is heard at trial. Expert evidence, budgets, and disclosure obligations all require careful balancing between fairness, proportionality and the needs of the court.

Laurie Noah