EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE COURTS IN 2022 – REVIEW AND GUIDANCE: DON’T LET THESE PROBLEMS HAPPEN TO YOU: WEBINAR 14th DECEMBER 2022
As the two posts on this blog yesterday showed there appears to be a never ending problem with expert evidence. This year there have been over a dozen cases about expert evidence reported on this blog alone, all of them showing major problems areas for litigators, litigants and experts alike. In December I am presenting a webinar on cases on experts in 2022. The webinar covers the whole range of litigation and should be of interest to experts and litigators alike. Booking details are available here .
This webinar looks at decisions over the previous 12 months and the lessons that litigators and experts must learn from them. The review includes cases where expert evidence has been disallowed, because of conduct by the expert or lawyers. Costs orders against experts and actions where experts have been compelled to disclose all the material relied on. The review looks across all areas of practice and is of relevance to all litigators and expert witnesses alike.
Cases to be considered include:
- ECU Group PLC v HSBC Bank PLC & Ors  EWHC 2875 (Comm) (was the expert being partial>)
- Radia v Marks  EWHC 145 (QB) (is a duty of care owed by a jointly instructed expert).
- Davies-Gilbert v Goacher  EWHC 969 (Ch).
“it is not for an expert to disregard the instructions they have received from the Court and the party instructing them and to thereby whole scale ignore evidence which does not support their opinion.”
- Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd  EWHC 2190 (TCC) (need experts attend trial?)
- Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Dr Chris Mercier (Costs order against an expert).
- Pickett v Balkind  EWHC 2226 (TCC) (Waiver of privilege in expert’s report).
- Bitar v Bank of Beirut SAL  EWHC 2163 (QB) (expert tending towards being an advocate).
- Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Ltd  EWHC 479 (QB) (Lawyers unduly intervening in the joint meeting process).
“It is important that the integrity of the expert discussion process is preserved so that the court, and the public, can have confidence that the court’s decisions are made on the basis of objective expert evidence. This is particularly important where, as here, the expert evidence is of a very technical nature so that the court is heavily reliant on the expert evidence being untainted by subjective considerations.”