What follows should be familiar to all solicitors engaged in contentious work, but it does no harm to remind ourselves of the basics. How can I, a humble chartered accountant, feel able to propound on such matters? Because I have practised for over 30 years as an expert witness; also for many years as a mediator and expert determiner. I have written many hundreds of expert and valuation reports, given expert evidence over 100 times, and conducted 120+ mediations and 45 expert determinations. I served for 14 years on the ICAEW forensic committee, and then for 6 on the ethics committee. I am a f ..read more

You may have read lots of articles and blogs from me about inadequate or incompetent experts, and having an expert who doesn’t know his job doesn’t help your case.  There are often costs consequences, a strident example being Patricia Andrews & Ors -v- Kronospan Ltd [2022] EWHC 479 which I discuss at length in my blog.  There, you may remember, an expert had charged £225,000 (an enormous sum, far higher than I have ever charged!) but was over two years late in delivering a Joint Statement of Experts.  Then, when enquiries were made, it was revealed that the expert had been i ..read more

You may have read lots of articles and blogs from me about inadequate or incompetent experts, and having an expert who doesn’t know his job doesn’t help your case.  There are often costs consequences, a strident example being Patricia Andrews & Ors -v- Kronospan Ltd [2022] EWHC 479 which I discuss at length in my blog.  There, you may remember, an expert had charged £225,000 (an enormous sum, far higher than I have ever charged!) but was over two years late in delivering a Joint Statement of Experts.  Then, when enquiries were made, it was revealed that the expert had been i ..read more

I’ve been reading again the case of Siegel -v- Pummell [2015] EWHC 195 (QB). The facts are simple.  Mr Siegel was injured in a motor accident, and Mr Pummell (think about it!) admitted liability.  There was a trial on quantum and Mr Siegel succeeded in securing a reasonable amount, but he claimed his costs on the indemnity basis for these reasons: The defendant’s expert neuropsychiatrist had made personal and combative attacks on the claimant’s expert psychologist; The defendant’s expert had not cooperated in the joint statement process and The defendant’s expert gave his written ev ..read more

“It is ordered that the experts of like experience shall liaise, and shall produce a joint statement, setting out those matters on which they are agreed, and those matters on which they have failed to reach agreement, and their reasons for not so agreeing.” This is fairly standard wording in civil cases. In criminal cases the experts are also ordered to set out the reasons for which they have reached agreement, too, which is interesting; but let’s stay with civil cases. So the experts have to get together and produce a joint statement, and that will form part of their report, so that the ..read more

Some months ago I wrote about the case of Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd -v- Dr Asef Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392 which concerned a fraudulent claim by a taxi driver, in my home town of Huddersfield (though we are not all criminals here!).  You can read about it on my blog. A medical expert had produced a report which he was asked to alter so as to improve the claimant’s case. He did so without seeing the claimant again, and he signed a statement of truth. The insurers got to hear about this, they took action against the solicitor and the doctor, and the outcome was that ..read more

The Single Joint Expert (SJE) was developed by Lord Wolf in his Access to Justice, and has featured in the Civil Procedure Rules ever since they were launched. The SJE is very popular with the courts, and no wonder. For example, where there is need to value the family business where a clean break is envisaged, in the old days I would frequently see a situation where the valuer for the husband (me, say) valued the business at £nil and the valuer for the wife said £1million. I don’t exaggerate; these were the precise values given in one of my early cases. Which valuer was right? I was! The ..read more

A few years ago we saw the funeral of brave Alfie Evans, the terminally ill little boy of 23 months who died despite a campaign to have him treated in Italy, supported by no less an advocate than the Pope, and whose parents had taken his case right up to the European Court of Human Rights. One cannot but be moved by such a tragic case. Now, I’m just a humble chartered accountant and commercial mediator, and not a social campaigner; but even I recognise the heart-wrenching dilemma of parents who seize every chance of life for their beloved children. The previous similar case was that of Charlie ..read more

A silly question, I know, but let’s persevere. It is a rock-solid principle of litigation that the expert must be independent, and that their opinions must be their own.  The leading case is Whitehouse -v- Jordan [1980] UKHL 12, where Lord Wilberforce said:  “The report of the expert must be, and be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.” Almost identical words were used by Mr Justice Cresswell in The Ikarian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 when, listing the seven duties and responsibilities of expert wit ..read more

You, dear readers, will be aware from past articles of my recurring theme with experts: choose them with care, choose them early, instruct them fully, and then let them get on with the job.  In particular, choose experts who are not only outstanding in their main profession, but who also have become proficient in their second profession as expert.  This assumes real value when a discussion between experts is ordered.  See for example my blog “The Real Value of the Meeting of Experts.” As I say there, the Court may specify the issues it wishes the experts to discuss, per CPR 35 ..read more