header-logo header-logo

30 March 2007 / Mark James
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Closing down

The controversial practice of expert shopping could soon be history. Mark James explains

Expert shopping has long been recognised as a vice of the adversarial sys­tem. Unlike many continental systems­—where court appointed experts are the norm—in England and Wales a party is free to select its own experts and discard those that do not support its case.

There is an obvious benefit to justice in forcing an expert shopper to disclose discarded reports. It enables the court to see the full picture and makes it more likely that justice is done. Discouraging expert shopping reduces the cost of litigation. Partisan experts writing biased reports to replace discarded reports are more easily detected, and objectivity in report writing is encouraged. Once disclosed, the discarded report may be relied upon by the other side as evidence at trial (see CPR 35.11).

Privilege

The desire to eliminate expert shopping and to do justice may, and usually will, bring the court into conflict with the doctrine of legal professional privilege. There is no doubt that, prior to disclosure to

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll