Expert Matters - The Podcast

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on proposed changes to the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that courts consider alterative dispute resolution as a key part of the court process, and are able to both encourage and order parties ot participate in it. 

A defendant who chose not to attend or be represented at trial, suggested that he might still instruct his expert witness to provide oral evidence. 

Ben Leeson & Anor v Donald McPherson [2024] EWHC 976 (Ch)

In a Parliamentary debate, Lord Bellamy, a Minister of Justice, noted the neeed for the Family Procedure Rule Comitttee to develop a solution to prevent unregulatd psychologists giving evidence in the Family Court. 

The High Court found that the Crown Court was bound to accept an uncontested expert report if it did not have a valid reasons for departing from the expert's opinion. 

Robert Fitzgerald v CPS [2024] EWHC 869 (Admin)

The sheriff appeal court upheld the sheriff's award of damages for injuries sustained in a vehicle accident which were assessed, in the absence of admissible expert evidence, on the basis of common experience. 

The case of Valdo Calocane, convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter, has brought to the public’s attention the role of expert psychiatric witnesses in cases of alleged murder. The case raises a number of issues about the role of expert witnesses in criminal proceedings, mental condition defences and the meaning of public interest.

From February to April 2024, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘Committee’) held a consultation on a proposed draft amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) rule 5.4C (supply of documents to a non-party from court records). We've set out the key themes and recommendations in the EWI response. 

The qualifications and experience of an expert in an extradition appeal did not demonstrate that he was an expert on the issues before the court. 

In considering whether to appoint a scientific advisor or order the exchange of expert evidence, the judge in a patent case considered the dividing line between the two roles. 

The judge found that an expert witness's anlaysis became incoherent because he failed from the outset to take into adequate account the NICE recommendations.