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

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll