News

The Court of Appeal determined that an employee of the appellant was able to provide opinion evidence because he was "qualified to give expert evidence" for the purposes of section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972. However, the trial judge needs to determine what weight (if any) to give to the opinions of someone who is not an independent expert instructed in accordance with the strictures and safeguards of CPR 35.

The Court of Appeal of Ireland found that material hyperlinked in an expert report constitutes part of the reference matrial on wich the report is based and the court is entitled (if not expected) to review it if it has any concerns with the content of the report itself. 

Tesco Ireland Limited v. Stateline Transport Limited [2024] IECA 46

The judge found that providing preliminary advice on the issues that arise regarding quantum did not impinge on the expert's ability to subsequently provide independent expert advice. 

The High Court of Ireland found that the Irish International Protection Appeals Tribunal's duty to cooperate required it offer the applicant the chance to obtain (or have obtained by the Tribunal) a medico-legal report on injuries which had come to light during the hearing. 

In BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11, Mr Justice Peel concludes that the direction of a Single Joint Expert is the default position in the Family Court and there is a high bar to persuade the court to give permission for two or more experts to be solely instructed. 

The judge made it clear to the parties that the expert evidence must be condensed and translated into a form which is manageable and proportionate to the court's enquiry. 

L v O [2024] EWFC 6

A late application to rely on a new expert witness does not engage CPR rule 3.9 and require an application for relief from sanctions.

An expert who does not understand their duty to be independent, and oversteps their role, risks the court either refusing to admit their evidence or placing less weight upon it. 

Ryan Castellucci, R (on the application of) v Gender Recognition Panel [2024] EWHC 54 (Admin)

The Claimants' solicitors abused the Court's process by issuing claims based on the evidence of an expert when there were significant concerns as to his independence in a previous case and therefore his understanding of his duty to the Court as an expert. 

An expert witness must be careful not to step over the boundary between being an independent expert and an advocate for the party instructing them.

Balachandra v The General Dental Council [2024] EWHC 18 (Admin) (10 January 2024)