Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding...
How not to use AI in expert evidence How not to use AI in expert evidence

How not to use AI in expert evidence

In this US case, an expert in fiduciary services used Microsoft’s Copilot to cross-check calculations he used in expert evidence. He was unable...
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Independence, bias and conflicts of interest Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Hon Mr Justice Trower provides invaluable guidance for Expert Witnesses at the 2024 the Sir Michael Davies lecture.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...
Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Simon and Sean discuss Single Joint Experts and catch up with two EWI members who act as Single Joint Experts to hear about their experiences, the...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Expert evidence and an absent defendant
Sean Mosby 550

Expert evidence and an absent defendant

bySean Mosby

The Case

The claimants brought an action alleging that the defendant unlawfully killed his wife while on holiday in Denmark. Shortly before the trial, the defendant informed the court that he would not attend or be represented at the trial. In deciding to proceed with the trial, the judge considered the implications of the defendant's absence for the expert evidence which he had adduced.

 

The expert evidence

The court had given both parties permission to rely on a written expert report in pathology. These were provided by Dr Fegan-Earl for the claimant and Dr Sheppard for the defendant. At the pre-trial review, the parties were also given permission to call oral evidence from their pathology experts. 

 

Although the defendant subsequently indicated that he would not attend or be represented at the trial, he suggested that he was still contemplating that Dr Sheppard would provide oral testimony.

 

The claimants argued that it was not possible for a party to be both absent and yet somehow sufficiently present to ‘call’ evidence. There was a ‘bright line’ to be drawn between a party who attends trial (whether in person or by their legal representative) and one who does not, a distinction that is made clear in the notes to the White Book (at CPR, Part 39.3.4). As Dr Sheppard’s report could not be tested in cross-examination, it should either not be admitted or, if admitted, given little or no weight. The claimants, however, made it clear that, consistent with the duty of fair disclosure, points favourable to the defendant would be raised with Dr Fegan-Earl, in examination-in-chief.

 

The judge’s view

The judge decided that, as the parties had been given permission to rely on expert evidence, “the written report of Dr Sheppard already forms part of the evidence that falls to be considered at trial, whether or not the Defendant chooses to exercise the right subsequently granted to him to call his expert.” The defendant’s absence from trial did not alter that position.

 

The judge then considered whether Dr Sheppard could give oral evidence if he were instructed to testify by the defendant. He concluded that allowing Dr Sheppard to give evidence orally in these circumstances would lead to real unfairness, as Dr Sheppard’s evidence would be tested by cross-examination, while Dr Fegan-Earl’s would not. This imbalance would be compounded by the claimant’s counsel putting points of potential assistance to the defendant to Dr Fegan-Earl. It could also lead to unfairness to the defendant who, if present, might have wished to re-examine aspects of Dr Sheppard’s oral evidence. The judge noted that the court could not do this on the defendant’s behalf without descending into the arena. 

 

Therefore, while the court would admit Dr Sheppard's evidence, it would attach the appropriate weight to the report given it could not be tested through cross-examination.

 

While not appropriate in this case, the judge noted that he could foresee circumstances in which a court might permit a party who was genuinely prevented from attending trial, in person or through the auspices of legal representatives, to adduce oral evidence from their witnesses. The judge noted that the court had wide case management powers and he had considered how Dr Sheppard’s evidence could have been facilitated in the circumstances, such as “through the experts giving evidence concurrently or suspending the fair disclosure regime presently in operation, at least during the phase of the pathology evidence.”

 

Learning points

  • If the court has provided permission for a written expert report, that evidence should form part of the evidence at the trial, even if the party does not attend or have legal representation at the trial.
  • A party who chooses not to attend the trial, either in person or through a legal representative, is unlikely to be able to call their expert to provide oral evidence.
  • The court may, however, decide to allow oral expert evidence from a party who is genuinely prevented from attending or being represented at the trial.
  • The court has wide case management powers to ensure that this can be done fairly.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.