Under UCPR r 31.19, the test for obtaining directions to adduce expert evidence is not whether the evidence may possibly be relevant and admissible, but whether it is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. Where it may reasonably seem highly unlikely that expert evidence will be relevant, the applicant must provide specificity as to the propositions the evidence is expected to support, rather than merely indicating the general area of the evidence. The usual practice of seeking directions before retaining an expert may need to be departed from in such cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 29 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 29 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.