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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll