header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 November 2021 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7958 / Categories: Features , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Judicial review: what’s admissible?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll