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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll