header-logo header-logo

Damage limitation

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll