After considering the report from the Single Joint Expert, the Wife in financial remedy proceedings attempted unsuccessfully to make a Daniels v Walker application to adduce evidence from her solely instructed expert. The judge set out the law on Daniels v Walker before applying it to the specifics of the case. 

The Minsitry of Justice intends to draft an amendment to the Family Procedure Rules regualting experts appointed by the court in both public and private law children proceedings.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committe has temporarily paused work on the proposed reforms to Access to Court Documents to allow the Transperancy and Open Justice Board to conduct the first phase of its work. The Committee has penciled in time in autumn to consider the matter further. 

When an SJE has been appointed, but one of the parties wishes to rely on their own evidence, the court should follow the staggered approach recommended by Lord Woolf in Daniels v. Walker.

John Seneschall v Trisant Foods Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1380 (Ch)

The claimants were seeking permission to change their expert after their solicitors admitted they did not comply with applicable rules and guidance on experts' joint statements. 

Jenni Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC)

Gareth Jenkins gave evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry from 25 to 28 June on the expert evidence he provided on the Horizon IT system. Mr Jenkins told the Inquiry that he had been unaware of his duties as an Expert Witness and had not been offered any training to support his role. The EWI offers comprehensive training on the core competencies of an Expert Witness. We urge policy and rule makers, and the judiciary, to consider how to ensure that Expert Witnesses fully understand their duties and know how to apply them.  

An expert must read and engage with any judgments which form part of their instructions. 

The pilot project seeks to use a range of highly expert consultants from a range of specialties undertake assessments of children, discuss findings with one another, and write a formal report for the Family Court.

An expert report did not address all of the questions posed in the letter of instruction, reformulated other questions, and failed to comply with FPR Part 25 in a number of important ways, while the expert witness's oral evidence failed to provide an impartial expert view. 

An expert is entitled to revise his or her opinion in light of a judge's finding as to what is or is not required in order to comply with particular regulations or equivalent regulatory standards.