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.
Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4 Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

The claimant alleged that the vibrating tools he used while employed by the defendant caused Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. The judge criticised one of...
EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme

EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme

The Expert Witness Institute has set up a new partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme which is a collaborative initiative between the...
RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th... RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th...

RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th...

The RICS is seeking feedback from public stakeholders on the updating of its Professional Standard for Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses. The...
Investigating possible non-accidental injuries in children Investigating possible non-accidental injuries in children

Investigating possible non-accidental injuries in children

In this case of suspected non-accidental injuries to an infant, only one of the experts was required to give evidence. This was Professor Fleming and...
DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025]... DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025]...

DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025]...

The Claimant brought a claim for compensation in the UK after he was hit by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Mallorca and suffered major...
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...
Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from...
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...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...
A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

Dr. Rohit Seth is trained in Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hair Transplant Surgery with over 20 years of surgical experience. A practicing...

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.

The direction of a Single Joint Expert should be the default position in the Family Court
Sean Mosby 2336

The direction of a Single Joint Expert should be the default position in the Family Court

bySean Mosby

The Case

The parties had separated in 2023 after 25 years of marriage. It was common ground between the parties that prima facie this was a case for equal division of the marital assets (provisionally valued by the husband’s FRC Efficiency Statement at £183 million), subject to potential arguments about liquidity and structure.

The parties agreed to move forward on the basis of the judge’s provisional view that he should make a direction for a Single Joint Expert ('SJE'). The judge provided a helpful explanation of his view that the direction of an SJE is the default position in the Family Court.

The rules on Single Joint Experts

Family Procedure Rule ('FPR') 25.11(1) states that:

“Where two or more parties wish to put expert evidence before the court on a particular issue, the court may direct that the evidence on that issue is to be given by a single joint expert”.

Paragraph 2.1 of the PD25D (and paragraph 2.1 in PD25C with respect to children proceeding) provides:

Wherever possible, expert evidence should be obtained from a single joint expert instructed by both or all the parties” [emphasis added].

The words “Whenever possible” do not appear in the equivalent Civil Procedure Rules ('CPR') provisions at CPR 35.7 and PD 35.7. This clearly indicates that the words “Whenever possible” were included for family proceedings, in contra distinction to the practice in civil procedure.

The judge also noted that the ‘fifth basic rule’ of the Financial Remedies Practice in its commentary on FPR Part 25 (pages 554 to 577) states that:

“The fifth basic rule is that whenever possible expert evidence should be obtained from an SJE instructed by both or all of the parties.”

The judge’s view

The judge concluded that:

          i)  Wherever possible, an SJE should be directed rather than giving permission for two or more experts to be solely instructed. This is the default position.

         ii)  The bar for departing from the default position is set high. A high degree of justification is required to persuade the court to do so.

The judge noted that there are a number of reasons why the default position should be instruction of an SJE including (as a non-exhaustive list):

           i)  Instructing one expert is usually cheaper than two,

          ii)  All experts have an overriding duty to the court (FPR 25.3),

         iii)  The SJE prepares a report in accordance with one joint letter of instruction, jointly provided information and one series of questions. With two or more experts,

                there is a risk the court may be faced with reports that are not just different in conclusions, but based on different information, questions and instructions,

         iv)  The parties can instruct shadow experts,

          v)  The SJE can be asked questions after the provision of the report (FPR 25.10),

         vi)  If either or both parties are dissatisfied with the SJE report, they can make a Daniels v Walker application for permission to adduce their own expert evidence.

                Experience suggests that this will only happen occasionally,

        vii)  Instruction of an SJE will usually enable the expert to decide what documents they need and request them, removing the need for lengthy questionnaires, and

       viii)  Whenever the court is considering expert evidence, issues of cost and proportionality arise.

Learning points

Learning points for instructing parties are:

  • The direction of an SJE should be the default position in the Family Court,

  • A high degree of justification is likely to be required to persuade the court to give permission for two or more experts to be solely instructed,

  • Instructing parties can (and in higher value cases probably should) instruct shadow experts to assist in (for example):            

Drafting the joint letter of instruction,

Raising questions for the SJE once the report has been received, and

Supporting the cross-examination of the SJE.

Learning points for expert witnesses are:

  • Expert Witnesses working in family law should be particularly conscious of the need to fully understand the role and duties of an SJE.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.