Expert Witness Institute urges removal of new intermediate track rule in civil claims cases
The EWI has written to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee calling for the removal of a rule in the new intermediate track for civil claims that would limit expert reports to 20 pages.
Rule 28.14 (3), set to come into force on October 1st 2023, includes a statement that unless the court orders otherwise, "any expert report shall not exceed 20 pages, excluding any necessary photographs, plans and academic or technical articles attached to the report."
A limit on report length would be a significant change for Expert Witnesses, with the potential to impact the work of experts and the quality of expert evidence, too.
What is the intermediate track?
From October 1st, civil claims cases between £25,000 and £100,000 can be allocated to a new intermediate track. It’s been introduced in an attempt to create certainty of legal costs that are proportionate across a wider range of civil claims.
Rule 28.14 (3), introduced without any consultation with the legal and expert witness community, was added to Part 28 amendments rather than making an amendment to Part 35, which would have signalled a significant change for experts. As such, its introduction was only recently highlighted to EWI and our membership.
EWI letter to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee
Our letter to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee strongly urges the removal of 28.14 (3) from the draft amendments ahead of the new track coming into effect.
In the letter, EWI CEO Simon Berney-Edwards writes: “It can only be assumed that the logic taken by the committee is that cases between £25k and £100k are less complex and therefore Expert Evidence can and should be restricted in order to save costs. If this is indeed the logic used, we would strongly urge you to reconsider.”
Elsewhere in the letter, we explained the reason for reports exceeding 20 pages:
“Reports tend to be over 20 pages because it is important for experts to include logical reasoning, refer to other opinions, and incorporate summary paragraphs.
All of this is in place to support the court in decision-making. The introduction of this arbitrary page limit will compromise the report and the ability of the Judge to assess the technical aspects of a case. Indeed, in advance of a Judge’s involvement, it is good, well-structured expert evidence that assists the lawyers in settling cases avoiding the need for trials.”
Key issues presented by the new rule
Using feedback from highly-experienced EWI members from various professions, our letter outlines a number of issues presented by the new rule, including:
Cases with a claim value of less than £100,000 are not always straight forward
Particularly in Medico-Legal, Construction and Forensic Accounting cases. Plus, at early stages in a claim it’s not always possible to calculate the value until after various expert witness reports have been obtained.
Restricting the number of pages to 20 is arbitrary, with no clarity on what to omit.
Different types of reports will have different requirements, which may vary according to profession, whether opinion is required on breach or quantum, and whether there are differences in factual or expert evidence to address.
Structure and necessary inclusions
Expert witnesses are required to meet their full obligations under CPR35, PD 35 and The Guidance for the Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims, which may not be achievable with a limit on report page numbers.
Expert opinion
If there are numerous facts on which an expert needs to base their opinion, then the report must be able to accommodate them.
Unintended consequences
Limiting the report length may mean information is removed, leading to a greater number of queries and a diminishing quality in the presentation of reports.
Our letters also suggests that, if the main requirement is to reduce the costs of expert evidence, the instruction a of a Single Joint Expert should be considered: a cost-effective option in lower value cases.
The letter concludes:
“In our view, expert witnesses should be well trained in their duties, must know that they should work efficiently and that their reports should be concise and clear – no longer than is necessary to assist the lawyers and the Court.
But it is for experts to determine the length of the report is each case, based on their instructions, their expertise and scope of opinion, and the details of the case.
We believe that the introduction of this rule will compromise the quality of expert evidence and good decision making. Ultimately, this will have an impact on the administration of Justice, the support provided to the courts, and the outcomes for those involved in litigation.”
We eagerly await a response from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee and will update our members in due course.
906