header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 April 2012 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7511 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Relative values

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Dr Chris Pamplin takes a hard look at the expert witness-specific recommendations from the Family Justice Review

The Family Justice Review Panel report (published in November 2011) contains several recommendations that are of particular significance for both expert witnesses practising in the family courts and those who instruct them. Announcing publication of the report, the Panel said that its recommendations were aimed at tackling “shocking delays in the system” and generally improving the family justice system.

Usefulness of expert evidence

The 155-page report devotes a little over nine pages to matters relating directly to expert witnesses. The section commences with a somewhat ambiguous statement as to the usefulness of expert evidence in child cases in the family courts. Acknowledging that expert evidence is “often necessary to a fair and complete process”, there has been a trend towards what the Review Panel believes is “unjustified use of expert witness reports, with consequent delay for children”.

It will be apparent, therefore, that this section of the report begins with a rebuttable presumption that there

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
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’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll