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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]