In a multi-million pound clinical negligence case, the District Judge made an odd order, to the effect that the claimant could amend his Particulars of Claim in such a way that an additional expert was needed on causation, but he refused the claimant permission to call an appropriate expert. He appeared to think that the report of that expert should be agreed if possible, and that failing agreement something else should be done. Because he did not grasp the nettle, the result was that an application came before him in the week before trial, repeating the application for permission. He refused, saying it was too late. He appeared to give no thought to the fact that it was his order which had been to blame, nor did he consider the obvious fact that the claim might fail due to lack of this expert.

The real interest of the case, apart from the poor quality of the decision-making by the District Judge, was that it was possible to appear at trial two days after the refusal of permission, persuade the High Court Judge to abridge time and dispense with notice to appeal, grant permission to appeal, and allow the appeal. It was obvious to him that it would not be fair to allow the Defendants to "cash in" on the Claimant's difficulty, and that justice required this extra expert. Sadly, the end result was an adjournment, which was far from ideal for the Claimant and his family.

16 November 2005