Expert evidence was one of the main areas considered during the review of the civil procedure, which introduced wide-ranging reforms. Two years on, expert evidence has generated a high level of case law and it is clear that the role of the expert is evolving.
Expert’s overriding duty to the court
Civil Procedure Rule 35.3 clearly states that an expert’s duty to the court overrides any obligation to the instructing party. The courts have upheld this duty by criticising experts where they have shown signs of partiality or demonstrated an ignorance of the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The Human Rights Act 1998 has hammered the message home: any whiff of bias and the parties will argue breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The clearest statement of an expert’s duties under the CPR is set out in Anglo Group plc v Winther Brown & Co Ltd [2000]. The main points include a duty to co-operate with the expert of the other party; to state the facts or assumptions upon which his opinion is based; to highlight any areas where his opinions are based on inadequate factual information; and to be open to reconsidering his opinion in the light of new evidence.
