header-logo header-logo

04 April 2014 / Paul Phillips
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Damage limitation

web_phillips

How will Jackson impact on the courts’ attitude towards expert evidence? Paul Phillips investigates

Changes to the Civil Procedure Rules post-Jackson concerning the use of expert witnesses may lead to a few sleepless nights for practitioners struggling to determine if they are adopting the best approach.

 

Expert’s role limited

Whereas in the past a number of different experts may have been called, some providing overlapping evidence, the emphasis now is on strictly limiting their role.

The direction is contained in CPR 35.4 (2) and (3): “(2) When parties apply for permission they must provide an estimate of the costs of the proposed expert evidence and identify—(a) the field in which expert evidence is required and the issues which the expert evidence will address ; and (b) where practicable, the name of the proposed expert. (3) If permission is granted it shall be in relation only to the expert named or the field identified under para (2). The order granting permission may specify the issues which the expert evidence should address [emphasis added].”

Apply

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll