Dr Chris Pamplin considers the test of reasonableness under CPR 35.1 when calling expert evidence
- A player’s agent was ‘reasonably required’ as an expert witness as clubs tend to keep earnings out of the public domain.
- Application of CPR 35.1 test of reasonableness when calling expert evidence.
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) require that expert evidence should be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings (CPR 35.1). But the test of reasonableness is a subjective one, and so there has always been a degree of uncertainty about precisely how this test is to be applied.
Warren J, in British Airways v Spencer [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch), [2015] All ER (D) 101 (Aug) proposed a three-stage test to determine whether expert evidence is necessary.
(1) If the evidence is necessary, it should be admitted.
(2) If it is not necessary, then the question is whether it would still assist the court.
(3) If it would assist, then the question is whether it is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.
This
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
