Easy, Tiger!

The  recent case of  Chris Packham CBE v Dominic Wightman & Ors.[2023] EWHC 1256 (KB) (link below), involved several experts. While most were deemed necessary and helpful, The Honourable Mr Justice Saini did find the "admission of evidence on one issue, tiger welfare, somewhat puzzling given the issues which arise in the claim".

In paragraph 44 he reminds of the duty to restrict evidence.

"I found the admission of evidence on the first of these issues, tiger welfare, somewhat puzzling given the issues which arise in the claim. I was told by Mr J Price for Mr Packham that such expert evidence had been opposed on his behalf before the Master, but it was nevertheless directed at the CCMC. I start by stating the obvious. Expert evidence must always be firmly tied to an issue which arises in the case. But even then the court has to consider whether it will be assisted in determining this issue by expert evidence bearing in mind considerations of cost and proportionality. There is a duty to restrict expert evidence: see CPR 35.1, and the commentary at White Book (2023) Vol. 1 at para. 35.1.1.

45: "I do not consider the expert evidence on tiger welfare to be of assistance. The issue before me is whether Mr Packham honestly held the views he expressed as to what he said were the appalling lives the Tigers had in the travelling circus in which they performed. That matter is to be determined primarily on his evidence and according to what I find as a fact were his genuine beliefs at the material time."