header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 April 2014 / Paul Phillips
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Damage limitation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll