Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
To what extent is expert evidence necessary? Kim Pryce, a personal injury specialist at Anthony Gold Solicitors, discusses the judgment in Hayden v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, which provides guidance on the practical implications of instructing expert witnesses.
The claimant was employed as a cardiac physiologist by the defendant and suffered a back injury when attempting to transfer a patient from a trolley to an investigation table in March 2007. Liability was admitted in April 2009. Judgment in default was
entered on 15 July 2010. The case was fixed for trial in April 2016 but was subsequently vacated by Foskett J in a hotly disputed application as he granted the defendant permission to rely on covertly recorded video surveillance. In the present case,
the defendant applied for permission to serve a defence which pleaded that the claimant had consciously exaggerated the consequences of her accident and included causation issues not previously seen in the pleadings. The defendant’s application
The claimant applied for permission to rely on the evidence of Mr Jeffrey A Simm, a video evidence analysis consultant, in the form of a witness statement or, in the alternative, permission to rely on his evidence in an expert capacity in the form of
a report. In his opinion, the DVD evidence ‘cannot be taken at face value’ and there had been selective filming.
This judgment is helpful in clarifying the position on the admissibility of expert evidence in civil proceedings as it clearly states several considerations that must be addressed in order for expert evidence to be admissible. The starting point for the
admissibility of expert evidence is reflected in CPR Part 35:
‘Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.’
The court went on to consider the appropriate statutory test which needs to be satisfied in order for expert evidence to be admissible found in section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972 which states:
‘3 Admissibility of expert opinion and certain expressions of non-expert opinion.(1) Subject to any rules of court made in pursuance of this Act, where a person is called a witness in any civil proceedings, his opinion on any relevant matter on which he is qualified to give expert evidence shall be admissible in evidence.(2) It is hereby declared that where a person is called as a witness in any civil proceedings, a statement of opinion by him on any relevant matter on which he is not qualified to give expert evidence, if made as a way of conveying relevant facts
personally perceived by him, is admissible as evidence of what he perceived.(3) In this section ‘relevant matter’ includes an issue in the proceedings in question.’
‘3 Admissibility of expert opinion and certain expressions of non-expert opinion.
(1) Subject to any rules of court made in pursuance of this Act, where a person is called a witness in any civil proceedings, his opinion on any relevant matter on which he is qualified to give expert evidence shall be admissible in evidence.
(2) It is hereby declared that where a person is called as a witness in any civil proceedings, a statement of opinion by him on any relevant matter on which he is not qualified to give expert evidence, if made as a way of conveying relevant facts
personally perceived by him, is admissible as evidence of what he perceived.
(3) In this section ‘relevant matter’ includes an issue in the proceedings in question.’
In addressing specifically, the admissibility of expert evidence in personal injury claims, the court considered the decision of Stadlen J in Samson v Ali  EWHC 4146(QB), which was a similar application to that of the claimant and involved
the same witness, Mr Simm. In that case Mr Simm had offered one area of technical evidence, although the permission to allow his evidence had not been made purely on the issue of admissibility.
The judgment followed the case of Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP  UKSC 6,  All ER (D) 99 (Feb) which had identified the meaning attributed to the term ‘assisting the court’. By comparing Mr Simms to an accountant or pathologist,
the court illustrated the difference between him and the latter two in that they used internationally recognised skills in carrying out their work, which can be peer reviewed and assessed for quality.
In the case of Kennedy v Cordia, a Scottish case, the law around the admissibility of expert evidence was revisited. Para 40 from this decision was cited:
‘Experts can and often do give evidence of fact as well as opinion evidence. A skilled witness, like any non- expert witness, can give evidence of what he or she has observed, if it is relevant to a fact in issue.’
The judgment also refers to the test in R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45, which involves two questions:
Mr Simms principally sought to give evidence of what he had seen when viewing the video footage and reading the surveillance logs. All he really said in addition to his factual analysis is that the operatives chose what to film. This work could have been
done by anybody. The judgment made it clear that the judge did not believe that any knowledge or skill was involved in this exercise such as to subject its admissibility to the expert evidence threshold. The claimant already had permission to adduce
factual evidence and on this basis the application was rejected.
In summary, the judgment clarified that expert evidence is only necessary to the extent to which it assists the court.
This judgment reiterates that by complying with the guidance for the instruction of experts, which is best practice, there are less likely to be any detrimental consequences for the expert witness or in the claim generally.
It is important for parties to comply with the guidance in instructing experts to avoid any challenges of foul play from the opposing party in the litigation process.
By complying with the Guidance, a party can avoid potentially undermining the evidence that they are seeking to obtain from their own expert. If the expert has not been instructed correctly or has not been provided with all the relevant materials, the
opposing party and the court are likely to draw adverse inferences on the evidence and the evidence will no longer hold the requisite weight and regard that it may have held, had all the relevant documents been made available.
This will lead to experts subsequently having to reconsider their opinions in the light of the new materials that they had not previously seen, which may cause delay in the claim.
Furthermore, if the guidance is not followed, experts run the risk of being open to criticism for forming an opinion without the complete materials, which may result in damage to their credibility or reputation.
This is an interesting judgment providing guidance on the practical implications of instructing expert witnesses, which lawyers advising in this area would be prudent to note.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234