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

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Banking and finance practice bolstered by partner hire

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

Commercial litigation team welcomes senior associate in Birmingham

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll