DA, Re (Whether to replace a Single Joint Expert) [2026] EWCOP 7 (T2)

Judgment concerning an application to replace a jointly instructed expert in proceedings relating to a wealthy individual.

DA is a wealthy man in his 80's but his daughter PA had concerns that AX and BX, a couple who acted as his housekeeper and butler, were exploiting him. Accordingly PA issued applications that her father lacked capacity in several areas including general property and affairs and will making. The jointly appointed expert, Dr Parvez, found DA had capacity to make decisions about residence but not in other areas. HHJ Burrows spoke to DA remotely to gauge his wishes and it was clear DA disagreed with the expert but also with his daughter. The judge then sets out the questions he has to answer at [26-28] in short:

1. whether Dr Parvez's approach to the assessment has breached his duty to the Court to a degree that neither the Court nor Respondents 2-7 can have confidence in him as an expert.
2. whether Dr Parvez's report is so obviously inadequate that I should disregard it now and instruct a new joint expert.
3. since the purpose of an expert report is to assist the Court, given the circumstances of this case, should he for any other reason to allow appointment of a new expert 

Answering these questions he decides that permitting Respondents 2-7 to obtain a further report is a proportionate departure from the single joint expert norm in this particular case, stating at [60] 

"capacity is foundational to jurisdiction and to the substantive welfare/property issues. DA himself disputes Dr Parvez's conclusions and method; the issues are technically complex; and the additional focused report can be obtained without material delay. I have considered the saving of time and cost but, given the centrality of the capacity issues, I am satisfied that overall justice between the parties justifies the limited departure from the usual approach, while retaining the current expert."

He adds at [62] that he did not make an order allowing the other parties to instruct their own expert as they were happy with Dr Parvez and his evidence can, in any case, be examined by the court at a later date.

Read the judgment on Bailii