header-logo header-logo

16 August 2018 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7806 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Who should bear the cost of experts’ mistakes?

nlj_7806_pamplin

Is a Crown expert witness part of the team or independent? Chris Pamplin looks at the costs implications

  • The CPS does not bear costs liability for the errors of its experts, Sharp LJ held in R v Aylesbury Crown Court.

When considering orders for costs against one or other of the parties, it is reasonable for the court to take into consideration the conduct of the parties and any failures or omissions made by them. It might seem reasonable that this extends to the activities of all persons involved on the party’s behalf, including expert witnesses. In this respect, then, one might think that expert witnesses are indivisible from the ‘legal team’.

This was the view taken by the Crown Court sitting at Aylesbury, whose cost order against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the subject of an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for judicial review. The DPP’s application was made following an order that the CPS pay the defendant’s costs following the collapse

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll