0370 270 6000

New guidance issued for the instruction of experts

14 August 2014

The Civil Justice Council has issued new guidance for the instruction of experts and the Civil Procedure Rules will be amended later this year to reflect the change. The guide is the Protocol for the Instruction of Experts and is currently annexed to Practice Direction 35.

The Guidance is vastly unchanged, apart from a new section on ‘Sanctions’ which explains that where court proceedings have commenced a professional instructing an expert or an expert may face sanctions for non-compliance with CPR 35, the Practice Directions or court orders. Cost penalties may also be imposed or the report/evidence can be ruled inadmissible under CPR 44. In extreme cases more serious sanctions are available such as if an expert commits perjury or is negligent and could face a professional negligence claim.

The guidance appears to have been drafted in view of the removal of expert witness immunity by the Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney (2011) and also from the recent band of case law following the inescapable Mitchell decision. Experts need to be aware that if they disproportionately increase the costs of litigation or are not compliant then they can face legal costs and other more damaging consequences which could affect an expert’s reputation and ability to continue practicing.

Related opinions

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View blog

Wide interpretation of “detriment” caused victimisation claim to succeed

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Warburton v The Chief Constable.

View blog

Restrictive Covenants – are changes coming?

Restrictive covenants are widely recognised as a complex area of employment law that is of key importance to many organisations. However more recently, they have become a hot topic with the Government launching their consultation.

View blog

Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?

In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up