Login Join Us
Wambura v Barrick TZ Ltd [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) Wambura v Barrick TZ Ltd [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB)

Wambura v Barrick TZ Ltd [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB)

The case involved the question of whether the claimants should have permission to call expert security evidence.
Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution consultation Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution consultation

Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution consultation

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on proposed changes to the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that courts consider alterative...
Expert evidence and an absent defendant Expert evidence and an absent defendant

Expert evidence and an absent defendant

A defendant who chose not to attend or be represented at trial, suggested that he might still instruct his expert witness to provide oral...
EWI welcomes government action on unregulated expert witnesses EWI welcomes government action on unregulated expert witnesses

EWI welcomes government action on unregulated expert witnesses

In a Parliamentary debate, Lord Bellamy, a Minister of Justice, noted the neeed for the Family Procedure Rule Comitttee to develop a...
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....
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

Expert reports and their appendices should not be indigestible to the court
Sean Mosby
/ Categories: Industry News, Case Updates

Expert reports and their appendices should not be indigestible to the court

The Case

Due to a supervening and unforeseen change in his financial position, L was seeking to vary, discharge and/or set aside a number of financial remedy final orders which he and his former wife had previously made by consent.

 

The judge was considering an application from the ex-husband for a stay and applications from the ex-wife for a Hadkinson Order and security for costs.

 

Case Management

In considering case management, the judge noted that:

 

“The expert reports are all supported by extremely lengthy appendices containing highly technical documents (there is an account of one exhibit simply being unexplained spreadsheets of figures: ‘Comparative World Overview Tables’). One exhibit runs to over twenty-two lever arch files. The size (and indeed, from counsel’s descriptions, the content) of these appendices will be indigestible to the court in [a five day] hearing. I have made clear to the parties that the information on which the experts wish to rely will need to be condensed and translated into a form and size which is manageable and proportionate for the enquiry on which I will be engaged.”

 

The judge also directed a discussion between experts in the same disciplines to draw up a schedule of agreement and disagreement. Questions to the experts from the parties would be considered at the pre-trial review hearing.

 

Learning points

  • In preparing their report, expert witnesses should bear in mind that the judge (or members of the jury) are not experts in that field and will have a limited amount of time to digest the expert evidence.
  • The information set out in the report (and appendices) should be labelled and described with sufficient clarity for a non-expert reader to understand its nature and purpose.
Previous Article Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Martin Warren [2024] EWCA Civ 14
Next Article The direction of a Single Joint Expert should be the default position in the Family Court
Print
780
Comments are only visible to subscribers.