header-logo header-logo

11 November 2016 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Trading standards

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll