header-logo header-logo

11 June 2014
Issue: 7610 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Experts under suspicion

Rogue experts face “serious” consequences but reform unnecessary

Rules regulating expert witnesses do not need to be reformed despite the findings of a BBC Panorama investigation, a leading provider of training for experts has said.

Undercover Panorama reporters found four expert witnesses who appeared willing to help clients hide the truth, in a programme broadcast this week. Two of the experts later denied the programme’s allegations.

Mark Solon, managing director of expert witness training company Bond Solon, says he has only come across corrupt experts “in press reports”.

He added: “Every expert should know that their primary duty is to the court not the paying party—it is also their duty to tell the truth and to sign a declaration to that effect.

“However, the unenlightened self-interest of experts may be to look to their next set of instructions so there is pressure, perhaps unspoken, to give a response that is favourable to the client.”

Solon says the important point was that there are rules in place.

“Experts who don’t tell the truth risk committing perjury, which is a serious criminal offence,” he says. 

“The case of Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 makes them liable in contract and they may be sued in negligence for an inadequate opinion. They may also be subject to disciplinary actions by professional bodies as well as a suit in damages by the opposing party.

“Solicitors should ensure that they do not use the expert as an adversarial tool but to assist in understanding a technical issue. They must not put pressure on the expert.

“There are serious consequences for not following the rules. The danger is that, where a solicitor frequently instructs the same expert in the same sort of matters, a system may be set up that tacitly encourages favourable opinions.”

 

Issue: 7610 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll