Although it was anticipated that the introduction of the Woolf reforms would lead to more court-appointed experts in complex, high-value cases brought before the Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court, it is still normally the case that each party will appoint its own expert to advise and give evidence on the technical aspects of the dispute. Since the court now expressly requires any experts appearing before it to confirm that they have understood and complied with their duty to the court, and instructions to experts are no longer automatically privileged from disclosure, it is more important than ever that the parties appoint suitably qualified and experienced experts in such matters. What makes someone a good expert? There is no single right or easy answer, but those responsible for their selection and appointment may like to consider the following:
Expertise
Obviously the first requirement is that experts have expertise in the required discipline. The first task is to identify precisely which discipline needs clarification in the proceedings. This is often easier said than done, particularly when, as is encouraged under the Woolf reforms, experts are appointed and consulted before the issues have been defined by the exchange of cases. What happens, for example, where damage is caused to a ship by a combination of a failed rivet, an engine explosion and subsequent fire? In such cases, it may be advisable to first consult an expert such as a marine engineer and work with them to determine whether it is also necessary to consult further experts in the fields of metallurgy and/or fire.
