Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

October 10th is World Mental Health Day and in this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at the issue of wellbeing and...
Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use...
Read between the lines, judge Read between the lines, judge

Read between the lines, judge

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and...
John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70 John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on the...
Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025 Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025

Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025

Resolve and EWI held our annual Scottish Medicolegal Conference at the Grand Central Hotel in Glasgow on 19 September. The event featured great...
Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV

Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV

Top tips and new support available to ensure you remain complaint and provide a good quality CV.
A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

Dr Richard Taylor is an Expert in the identification, verification and valuation of diamonds, gemstones, jewellery, watches, silver and antiques. He...
Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing

Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing

In the 16th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and Sean, discuss CV Writing. We look at the purpose of expert CVs, the rules and...
The Medical Expert in Court The Medical Expert in Court

The Medical Expert in Court

Fans of true crime and anyone involved in giving expert evidence might be interested in a recent podcast episode from EWI Fellow, Dr Harry Brunjes.
Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness... Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

In the 15th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkis, discuss the power of EWI membership and the...
A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

Marisa Shek is a Healthcare Architect and owner of Shek Architects. As an Expert Witness, she specialises in the field of accommodation for disabled...
A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

Susan Jones, founder of SJ Consultancy, has been a town planning consultant for over 40 years. As an Expert Witness, she provides evidence at public...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Expert evidence and an absent defendant
Sean Mosby 1684

Expert evidence and an absent defendant

bySean Mosby

The Case

The claimants brought an action alleging that the defendant unlawfully killed his wife while on holiday in Denmark. Shortly before the trial, the defendant informed the court that he would not attend or be represented at the trial. In deciding to proceed with the trial, the judge considered the implications of the defendant's absence for the expert evidence which he had adduced.

The expert evidence

The court had given both parties permission to rely on a written expert report in pathology. These were provided by Dr Fegan-Earl for the claimant and Dr Sheppard for the defendant. At the pre-trial review, the parties were also given permission to call oral evidence from their pathology experts. 

Although the defendant subsequently indicated that he would not attend or be represented at the trial, he suggested that he was still contemplating that Dr Sheppard would provide oral testimony.

The claimants argued that it was not possible for a party to be both absent and yet somehow sufficiently present to ‘call’ evidence. There was a ‘bright line’ to be drawn between a party who attends trial (whether in person or by their legal representative) and one who does not, a distinction that is made clear in the notes to the White Book (at CPR, Part 39.3.4). As Dr Sheppard’s report could not be tested in cross-examination, it should either not be admitted or, if admitted, given little or no weight. The claimants, however, made it clear that, consistent with the duty of fair disclosure, points favourable to the defendant would be raised with Dr Fegan-Earl, in examination-in-chief.

The judge’s view

The judge decided that, as the parties had been given permission to rely on expert evidence, “the written report of Dr Sheppard already forms part of the evidence that falls to be considered at trial, whether or not the Defendant chooses to exercise the right subsequently granted to him to call his expert.” The defendant’s absence from trial did not alter that position.

The judge then considered whether Dr Sheppard could give oral evidence if he were instructed to testify by the defendant. He concluded that allowing Dr Sheppard to give evidence orally in these circumstances would lead to real unfairness, as Dr Sheppard’s evidence would be tested by cross-examination, while Dr Fegan-Earl’s would not. This imbalance would be compounded by the claimant’s counsel putting points of potential assistance to the defendant to Dr Fegan-Earl. It could also lead to unfairness to the defendant who, if present, might have wished to re-examine aspects of Dr Sheppard’s oral evidence. The judge noted that the court could not do this on the defendant’s behalf without descending into the arena. 

Therefore, while the court would admit Dr Sheppard's evidence, it would attach the appropriate weight to the report given it could not be tested through cross-examination.

While not appropriate in this case, the judge noted that he could foresee circumstances in which a court might permit a party who was genuinely prevented from attending trial, in person or through the auspices of legal representatives, to adduce oral evidence from their witnesses. The judge noted that the court had wide case management powers and he had considered how Dr Sheppard’s evidence could have been facilitated in the circumstances, such as “through the experts giving evidence concurrently or suspending the fair disclosure regime presently in operation, at least during the phase of the pathology evidence.”

Learning points

  • If the court has provided permission for a written expert report, that evidence should form part of the evidence at the trial, even if the party does not attend or have legal representation at the trial.
  • A party who chooses not to attend the trial, either in person or through a legal representative, is unlikely to be able to call their expert to provide oral evidence.
  • The court may, however, decide to allow oral expert evidence from a party who is genuinely prevented from attending or being represented at the trial.
  • The court has wide case management powers to ensure that this can be done fairly.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.