1. The Claimant was born in 1966 and so was 35 at the date of the accident in 2001. He is now 39.

3. The Claimant instructed a care expert before the issue of proceedings, having obtained the defence insurers' approval under the protocol. That expert estimated the annual cost of care for the Claimant, who is tetraplegic. Concern was expressed whether that annual cost would be sufficient, and so a second opinion was obtained. The second expert estimated the annual cost at £50,000 a year more than the first expert. Permission was therefore sought from the district judge for the second expert to be the Claimant's expert. The district judge refused that application, saying that there was no material to indicate that the first expert was wrong. We regarded that decision as perverse, as it clearly was, and so appealed.

4. The Defendant insisted on resisting the appeal, no doubt because the effect of the second expert's evidence, if accepted, would be to increase the claim by over £1 million. They could and should have realised that the district judge's decision was plainly unjust, but they sought to take advantage of a poor quality judge's decision, and so to deprive the Claimant of the right to argue for a fair assessment of his future needs. The Claimant's costs of appeal were over £10,000, money wasted by the insurers and their legal advisers.

5. Mr Justice McKinnon agreed that the decision was plainly wrong, and unjust, and so set it aside, giving the Claimant permission to rely on the second expert.

16 November 2005

BILL BRAITHWAITE Q.C.

Exchange Chambers

Liverpool and Manchester