header-logo header-logo

13 June 2019 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7844 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Under the influence?

Chris Pamplin explains why mentoring schemes must be disclosed
  • Experts need to be cautious not to hide the use of any mentor or peer-review system.

The duties of an expert witness, as laid down in The Ikarian Reefer (National Justice Cia Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68, [1993] FSR 563) are well established and all expert witnesses should be familiar with them. Uppermost among these is that the expert owes an overriding duty to the court, before any obligation to the person from whom they had received instructions or payment, or to any commissioning organisation. Protocols dictate that experts must be independent, and their views should be given without outside influence and should be free of witness ‘coaching’.

What’s required?

In David Pinkus v Direct Line Group [2018] EWHC 1671 (QB) we have a recent example of a case in which an expert failed in this duty. As a result, the court gave a useful ruling on what is required.

The case involved two neuropsychologist

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll