header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Judicial review: what’s admissible?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
26 November 2021 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7958 / Categories: Features , Judicial review
printer mail-detail
65091
Nicholas Dobson examines expert opinion evidence in judicial review proceedings
  • In judicial review proceedings, it is seldom necessary or appropriate to consider any evidence beyond the material before the decision-maker at the time of the decision and evidence of the process by which the decision was taken.

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that an expert is a: ‘person regarded or consulted as an authority on account of special skill, training, or knowledge; a specialist’. However, former prime minister, Lord Salisbury (1830–1903) had a more jaundiced view: ‘You never should trust experts’, he wrote. For if: ‘you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe.’ There does, nevertheless, remain widespread public trust in expert opinion; much more so than in politicians. Relying on this, government ministers have often claimed to be ‘following the science’ on COVID.

But what of expert witnesses in court proceedings? Rule 35.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) states that a ‘reference to

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll