Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or... Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or...

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or...

The judge noted that the expert readily accepted that integral to his reasoning was that he did not believe the claimant as to the symptoms he had...
Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings

Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings

A Civil Justice Council working group has published a report setting out recommendations for the development of a procedure for determing mental...
When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert.

When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert.

The 'joint statement' prepared by two blockchain experts was really two statements, one from each expert. Fabrizio D'Aloia v Persons...
Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

In the 6th Episode of Expert Matters Podcast, Simon talks with retired Barrister and expert witness trainer, Giles Eyre, who is retiring as an EWI...
The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert wtiness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...

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.

Replacing Expert Witnesses: Expert shopping or genuine concern?
Simon Berney-Edwards 1767

Replacing Expert Witnesses: Expert shopping or genuine concern?

bySimon Berney-Edwards

A recent application to the High Court to replace two experts with one new expert has been considered by Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE and provides useful insight to legal teams regarding when permission to change an expert witness will be granted and the documentation ordered to be disclosed.

 

The case relates to a fire at a retirement village in 2019 which almost destroyed the entire property, and the claimants seeking damages of over £40m in respect of alleged deficiencies in design and the construction of the property.

 

In this application, the claimants sought to replace two experts; one a Forensic Scientist, the other a Fire Engineer.

 

The court’s power to change an Expert Witness

In the judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell provides a useful summary of the relevant principles and discretionary powers the court has as was considered in the case of The University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partner and others [2022] EWHC 2750 (TCC):

 

i) The court has a general discretion to permit a party to change the identity of the expert on which it relies, pursuant to its specific power to control the use of expert evidence under CPR 35.4 or as part of its general case management powers under CPR 3.1(2).

 

ii) Such general discretion should be exercised having regard to all the material circumstances of the case and in accordance with the overriding objective.

iii) The usual rule is that the court should not refuse a party permission to rely on a new expert in substitution for an existing expert: Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon plc [2011] EWCA Civ 136 per Hughes LJ at [30]; Murray v Devenish [2017] EWCA Civ 1016 per Gross LJ at [15]-[16].

 

iv) Where a party requires the court's permission to rely on a new expert in substitution for an existing expert, the court has the power to give permission on condition that the original expert's reports, containing the substance of the expert's opinion, are disclosed to the other parties and such condition will usually be imposed: Beck v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1043 per Simon Brown LJ at [24]-[26]; Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou [2005] EWCA Civ 236 per Dyson LJ at [29]-[30].

 

v) The justification for imposing a condition that the original expert's reports should be disclosed includes (a) prevention of expert shopping and (b) ensuring that the expert's contribution is available to the court and all parties, regardless of the instructing party: Vasiliou (above) at [29]; Edwards-Tubb (above) at [30].

 

vi) The court's power to impose a condition on the grant of permission to change an expert may extend to other documents containing the substance of the original expert's opinion but the court must be cautious about encroaching upon areas of privilege and consider carefully the potential value of such other documents; in particular, there must be a strong case to justify disclosure of solicitors' attendance notes: BMG (Mansfield) Ltd v Galliford Try Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3183 (TCC) per Edwards-Stuart J at [28]-[32].

 

Changing the Forensic Scientist

The application to change the Forensic Scientist had not been opposed in principle by the Defendants. The Expert Witness has a serious illness which requires treatment and prevents her from continuing to participate in the proceedings. However, their position was that her earlier reports, opinions and investigation notes be disclosed.

 

Considering submissions from each side that on the basis that this was clearly not a case of expert shopping and a case of necessity due to the expert’s illness, there would usually be no reason to disclose all reports or other documents setting out her opinion.

 

However, because the Expert had played such a significant part in the litigation; leading an investigation at the property before it was demolished, interviewing a resident, and providing substantial input into the statements of the case, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated that the court would order the disclosure of all reports and notes.

 

The reasons for this are:

  • The expert’s documentation contained evidence of primary facts that would now be unavailable through any future inspection due to demolition of the property.
  • If she had continued to act in the case, it is likely she would have referred to the documents and there would have therefore been a requirement to disclose them anyway.
  • It is likely the replacement expert will be given access to the documents.
  • In the interest of fairness and transparency, one of the defendant’s had not been involved in the dispute in the early stages and therefore their expert did not participate in early investigations.
  • Notes of the interview with the resident may include relevant information that would not have been included in their witness statement.

 

Changing the Fire Engineer

The grounds for changing the Fire Engineer were less clear and the defendants opposed the application because the expert to be replaced is qualified and available to give expert evidence at trial.

 

The reasons put forward by the Claimants across two witness statements include:

  • The expert had relied on a colleague to carry out analysis with respect to sprinkler capability but was not a fire engineer. However, the Forensic Scientist had been able to cover this. And as this expert was being replaced, they wished to change the Fire Engineer.
  • The considerable overlap of evidence from the Forensic Expert and the Fire Engineer.
  • Concern that there was a conflict of interest from the Fire Engineer.
  • The claimants do not have confidence in the Fire Engineer.
  • The claimants accept that the three reports prepared by their Fire Engineer would be disclosed.

 

Whilst noting the legitimate concerns from the defendants, Mrs Justice O’Farrell granted the application to change the Expert Witness stating that:

 

“It is in the interests of justice that the claimants should have permission to rely on an expert in whom they have confidence.”

 

She ordered that the expert’s reports, draft reports, and any further documents in which the expert had expressed an opinion to be disclosed.

 

Learning points:

  1. If the grounds for changing your expert are clear cut (such as illness) the court may still order the disclosure of documents if they contain information or evidence of primary facts that should be made available to all.
  2. The court will accept lack of confidence in the expert as grounds for a change, but you will need to be clear of the reasons and be aware that all opinion provided by that expert will be disclosed.
  3. If you are seeking to change your expert, provide as much clarity as possible regarding the reasons for the change.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.