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

The Future of Mediation

In an effort to build a stronger justice system, a shift in priorities has emerged away from adversarial court battles and more towards opportunities for consensual resolution. As one of the most popular forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), mediation has become increasingly encouraged.

View blog

Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.

View blog

Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview

Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.

View blog

Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed

The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up