Much has been written about the changes brought about by the civil procedure rules (CPR) that require independence from an expert, whose primary duty must now be to the court and not to the party instructing or paying him.
There is still confusion, however, about the practical implications of this requirement of independence on the choice of an expert. A decision last year suggested that, irrespective of his expertise and professional standing, an expert’s evidence could be found inadmissible where he had a close relationship with the party calling him. Litigants and their advisers, as well as experts themselves, will welcome recent support from the Court of Appeal for a less restrictive approach.
