header-logo header-logo

27 February 2026
Issue: 8151 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

243388
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

In Re M and AX, appellate courts stressed fairness over labels of ‘rarity or exceptionality’, yet upheld refusals where new evidence was irregularly obtained or unlikely to affect outcome. Judges may limit cross-examination and insist on written questions.

The tension between expedition and fairness endures—but the decisive question remains whether, taken as a whole, the hearing is fair.

Issue: 8151 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Expert Witness
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll