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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll