Gill O’Connor reports on the impact of the restriction of single joint expert reports in the family courts
- Recent case law suggests that there is a trend towards the family courts taking a more stringent view of the definition of what is “necessary” when considering whether expert evidence should be admissible.
- In cases that do not meet the “necessary” threshold, family lawyers should consider an in-house approach, with the appropriate input from experts.
Three years on from the restriction of expert evidence in family proceedings, recent case law suggests that the family court is taking a more stringent view of what is deemed to be “necessary” when considering the test of the admissibility of expert evidence. Given that the purpose of the amendment to Pt 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) was to reduce the number of experts giving evidence in family proceedings, this is perhaps unsurprising. However, will this time and cost saving approach prove to be a false economy?
“Necessary”—what it says on the tin?
Historically, for many family lawyers, it was standard procedure to instruct an expert to provide
