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

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll