header-logo header-logo

27 February 2026 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 8151 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Family
printer mail-detail

Experts in the dock

243388
With no automatic right to call experts in family proceedings, Dr Chris Pamplin considers how courts balance proportionality, fairness & delay
  • Under Pt 25 of the Family Procedure Rules, expert attendance at a final hearing must be shown to be necessary in the interests of justice, with written questions the default method of challenge.
  • Recent case law confirms that the test is not exceptionality or the gravity of the case, but whether oral evidence is required to ensure overall fairness.
  • The drive to reduce delay and control expert evidence creates ongoing tension between procedural efficiency and a party’s ability to properly test critical expert opinion.

In the Family Court, there is no automatic right for parties to hear oral evidence or cross-examine the experts. In the first instance, the appropriate way to interrogate written expert evidence is in writing under rule 25.10 of the Family Procedure Rules (FPR). With the court’s permission, and where consistent with the overriding objective in Pt 1 of the FPR, written questions might

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
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
back-to-top-scroll