header-logo header-logo

Experts: Know your limits

28 January 2022 / David Locke , Giles Colin
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Expert Witness , Costs
printer mail-detail
70030
Experts opining on subjects outside their specialism risk being hit with a third-party costs order, as David Locke & Giles Colin explain
  • Two recent decisions have seen a third-party costs order made against an expert in clinical negligence litigation.
  • The judgments serve as a warning that experts must ensure that they only accept instructions on matters within their specialist areas of expertise.

Claims in alleged clinical negligence can be neither pursued, nor defended, without the involvement of medico-legal experts. When contested claims discontinue, or settle, at a late stage, it is frequently because previously supportive experts have revised their opinions—sometimes as a result of discussions with their counterparts, sometimes of their own accord. That is usually perfectly appropriate and in keeping with their duty to the court.

The small number of cases that proceed to liability trials do so because the parties’ experts maintain opposing opinions and, again, although ultimately one opinion will be preferred over the other, that does not of itself imply any criticism. However,

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

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Jersey litigation lead appointed to global STEP Council

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

Firm invests in future talent with new training cohort

NEWS
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
back-to-top-scroll