Q&As

If the court has ordered a joint instruction of an expert, but the other side is disregarding that and going ahead with its own expert only, what are the consequences?

read titleRead full title
Published on LexisPSL on 23/09/2016

The following Dispute Resolution Q&A provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • If the court has ordered a joint instruction of an expert, but the other side is disregarding that and going ahead with its own expert only, what are the consequences?

If the court has ordered a joint instruction of an expert, but the other side is disregarding that and going ahead with its own expert only, what are the consequences?

Experts and those instructing them are expected to have regard to:

  1. all relevant CPR Rules and Practice Directions, and

  2. the Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims ('the Guidance'). Note: on 1 December 2014, the Guidance replaced the 'Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to give Evidence in Civil Claims' which had been annexed to CPR PD 35

  3. Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 7, and

  4. any relevant provisions depending on the track and/or the court in which your matter is proceeding

The court's power to direct evidence be given by a single joint expert ('SJE') is within CPR 35.7(1). See Practice Note: Single joint experts.

CPR 35.4 provides there is no right for a party to call an expert to give oral evidence at trial or to put in (and seek to rely on) an expert's report without the court's permission, irrespective of the track on which your claim is proceeding. Therefore, the other party will generally have to seek and obtain the courts permission prior to instructing their own expert.

Generally the court rules, and the courts themselves, are keen to limit the use of expert evidence to that which is 'reasonably required

Related documents:

Popular documents