header-logo header-logo

Adducing extra expert evidence: a fine balance?

27 May 2022 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7980 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail
82781
How many experts are required? Timing may be relevant to the answer, writes Chris Pamplin
  • In two recent cases that involve requests to adduce expert evidence late in the day, the court allowed it in one case, but not the other.
  • The deciding factors seem to be the timing of the requests and cost proportionality.

The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinions that are objective and unbiased in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions. The rule is that witnesses should only testify in relation to matters within their knowledge.

Court’s power to limit expert evidence

It is important that expert witnesses do not stray beyond the scope of their particular areas of expertise. To do so may render their evidence inadmissible or seriously reduce its value in the eyes

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll