Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Adjournment refused as trial to proceed with existing expert evidence following unavailability of plaintiff’s economist
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused the plaintiff's application for an adjournment to allow the instruction of a new expert witness after its principal economist became unexpectedly unavailable to give oral evidence. The court held that, while the plaintiff was not at fault and the difficulty was unfortunate, the interests of justice favoured proceeding with the trial based on the existing expert reports and written statements. Key factors in the decision included the advanced stage of the nearly seven-year-old litigation, the risk of procedural disruption from introducing a new expert, the sufficiency of written expert material already before the court, and the defendant’s waiver of cross-examination rights. The court found that potential prejudice to the plaintiff did not outweigh the need for the prompt and efficient continuation and completion of the proceedings.
adjournment application – expert witness – oral testimony – competition law – abuse of dominance – concerted practice – joint expert statement – civil proceedings – case management – security for costs – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 – trial delay
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
