A judgment in the case of Wambura & Ors V Barrick TZ LTD & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) makes interesting reading in understanding the tests that will be applied in determining whether expert Evidence is required in a case.
The case concerns claims brought by 14 Tanzanian nationals for personal injury and death said to be caused by Tanzanian police engaged by the defendants for security operations on or near the North Mara gold mine in North-West Tanzania.
The Claimants requested permission to call security expert evidence relating to the case. However, this request was opposed by the defendants who stated that the Claimants had been able to plead a detailed case on the issues on which they were proposing to introduce expert evidence. In addition, the judge would have access to CCTV evidence relating to many of the incidents. Therefore, they argued that expert evidence was unlikely to offer the court any additional assistance.
Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that “expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings”.
The claimants were asked to submit the proposed terms of reference for the instruction of the expert, together with the identity and CV of the individual they sought to instruct.
In considering whether the evidence was admissible, Master Stevens considered the extent to which:
- The evidence would assist the trial judge
- The proposed expert had the necessary knowledge and experience
- The proposed expert was impartial
- There was a reliable body of knowledge
In reaching a judgment on whether the evidence was reasonably required, Master Stevens noted that this was dependent of finding that the proposed expert evidence could be useful. This was not found to be the case and therefore the application was dismissed.
This is a useful case to read if you are considering whether or not you might be able to apply to use Expert Evidence.