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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll