Login Join Us
R v Valdo Calocane, The Crown Court at Nottingham, 25 January 2024, unreported R v Valdo Calocane, The Crown Court at Nottingham, 25 January 2024, unreported

R v Valdo Calocane, The Crown Court at Nottingham, 25 January 2024, unreported

The case of Valdo Calocane, convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter, has brought to the public’s attention the role of expert...
The EWI’s view on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee Court Documents Consultation The EWI’s view on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee Court Documents Consultation

The EWI’s view on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee Court Documents Consultation

From February to April 2024, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘Committee’) held a consultation on a proposed draft amendment to the...
Dusko Knezevic v The Government of the Republic of Montenegro [2024] EWHC 761 (Admin) Dusko Knezevic v The Government of the Republic of Montenegro [2024] EWHC 761 (Admin)

Dusko Knezevic v The Government of the Republic of Montenegro [2024] EWHC 761 (Admin)

The qualifications and experience of an expert in an extradition appeal did not demonstrate that he was an expert on the issues before the...
A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and... A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

EWI Honorary Fellow Tony Saggers has been a drug trafficking Expert Witness since 1995, alongside a career in law enforcement that spanned 30 years....
Aston Risk Management Ltd v Lee Jones & Ors [2024] EWHC 252 (Ch) Aston Risk Management Ltd v Lee Jones & Ors [2024] EWHC 252 (Ch)

Aston Risk Management Ltd v Lee Jones & Ors [2024] EWHC 252 (Ch)

The judge found that providing preliminary advice on the issues that arise regarding quantum did not impinge on the expert's ability to...
Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

The Forensic Science Regulator is consulting on the draft for the development of version 2 of the forensic science code of practice.

News

Recent judgment highlights Expert Witness failings
Simon Berney-Edwards
/ Categories: Industry News

Recent judgment highlights Expert Witness failings

A recent judgment by The Honourable Mr Justice Fraser highlights the numerous failings of an Expert.

 

The recent judgment in Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd [2021] EWHC 1116 (TCC) once again highlights the importance of those putting themselves forward as Expert Witnesses in developing a fundamental understanding of their role and the regulations governing their work.

 

The Honourable Justice Fraser highlights 8 key failings of the Expert’s performance:

 

  1. Embellishing and exagerrating criticisms
  2. Introducing new concepts or issues in the witness box.
  3. Under cross examination, relying on material that had no relevance to the issues under consideration in the trial. 
  4. Changing his agreement with, and reliance upon, the work of his associate whose work formed an Appendix of his report.
  5. A lack of objectivity.
  6. Constantly seeking to advance the claimants' case at the expense of expert objectivity.
  7. Introducing a concept into his cross-examination which was not an issue for the court.
  8. Taking a position on a contested issue of fact and did not change or alter his opinion in any respect after the evidence had been given.

 

In the follow up judgement related to costs issued on 25th May 2021 The Honourable Justice Fraser added further commentary on the well documented role of the Expert Witness.

 

He stated:

 

“There is a worrying trend generally which seems to be developing in terms of failures by experts generally in litigation complying with their duties. Practice Direction 35 makes the position very clear:
2.1 Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation.
2.2 Experts should assist the court by providing objective, unbiased opinions on matters within their expertise, and should not assume the role of an advocate.”

 

EWI Chief Executive Officer, Simon Berney-Edwards, said:


“This judgment provides yet another stark reminder of the importance of people putting themselves forward as an Expert Witness understanding their role and the duties to the court. Judges have an important role to play in highlighting poor practice and feedback such as this can ruin your reputation. Although the judge did not believe on this occasion that the actions of the Expert would justify an award of indemnity costs, it does highlight the implications for those Experts who do not take their duties seriously." 

 

The full judgment and supporting resources can be accessed via the links below.

Previous Article Are Digital Forensics Experts prone to bias?
Next Article Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey and Co Inc (United Kingdom) [2021] EWHC 216 (Ch)
Print
2962
Comments are only visible to subscribers.