header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Trading standards

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
11 November 2016 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7722_pamplin

Chris Pamplin looks at how greater exposure to litigants in person is also exposing expert witnesses to consumer law

Until recently, it was rare for an expert witness to contract direct with a litigant. Indeed, having a lawyer as a buffer between you and the litigant is generally a very good thing, not least when your independence leads you to express opinions the litigant doesn’t like. However, the savage cuts in public funding and restrictions on cost recovery mean that courts are seeing a massive increase in the number of litigants in person. As a consequence, more experts are being asked to work direct with “consumers”, and it opens a whole new can of worms.

Consumer law landscape

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (CCR 2013) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) have ushered in some significant changes to the law in relation to consumer contracts for the supply of goods and services. Experts who are instructed by litigants in person, and create contracts with them,

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
HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Firm grows London practice with two partner promotions

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Government contracts and procurement practice expands with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll