A spate of recent decisions by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) have featured harsh criticism of expert witnesses. The landmark case of Compania Naviera SA vs Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (Ikarian Reefer) in 1993 set out clearly an expert’s duties, and recent case law will hopefully remind experts what it means to act as an expert witness.

The principles set out in the Ikarian Reefer decision are enshrined in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), yet it seems that experts pay scant regard to the rules governing their participation in the litigation process.  

The Supreme Court in Jones vs Kaney (2011) abolished a 400-year-old immunity from liability for experts. This means experts can now be sued in negligence. The court, no longer convinced that experts would become unwilling to act for fear of being sued, held that the removal of immunity “would tend to ensure a greater degree of care”. Unfortunately, recent decisions suggest standards, rather than improving, have continued to slip, with a seeming lack of knowledge among experts as to what their role entails.  

“An expert’s duty is to help the court on matters within their expertise. This duty overrides any obligations to the client who has instructed or paid the expert”

…