Working with expert witnesses... is a new monthly article series. The series takes a look at the role of expert witnesses in a range of sectors from the perspective of the legal and other professionals who work with them. If you are interested in being featured in the series, you can contact us at policy@ewi.org.uk. 

In the second article in the series, Thomas Hamilton, a Senior Solicitor at Thompsons Solicitors, discusses his experience of working with expert witnesses in serious injury claims. 

The judge found that the report by the claimants’ forensic accounting expert was not expert evidence because it simply reported what the underlying documents said in a more digestible way, without adding any expert opinion. On the one or two occasions where the expert did offer an opinion, they were not opinions on any accountancy matter.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is undertaking a consultation regarding the effectiveness of the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC), inviting feedback as part of an evidence-gathering initiative conducted in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). You can input into the EWI response by completing a survey of the consultation questions. 

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice Direction 77 to support the implementation of the new power of the Secretary of State for Justice to direct the Parole Board to refer certain top-tier cases to the High Court for a new release decision.

The defendant made an application for adjournment on the proposition that it could not be ready for trial because its experts required additional time to complete their reports. However, it was unable to demonstrate that it would be unfair to proceed with the existing trial.  

In this update on the 20-page limit for expert reports for cases on the Intermediate Track, we set out the position of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee on our concerns following further discussions, the Committee's intention to review the reforms after 12 months, and the EWI's advice to members. 

The Court of Appeal determined that an employee of the appellant was able to provide opinion evidence because he was "qualified to give expert evidence" for the purposes of section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972. However, the trial judge needs to determine what weight (if any) to give to the opinions of someone who is not an independent expert instructed in accordance with the strictures and safeguards of CPR 35.

A late application to rely on a new expert witness does not engage CPR rule 3.9 and require an application for relief from sanctions.

Expert evidence must always be firmly tied to an issue which arises in the case.