header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 January 2022 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Expert witness: No right of reply?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
70036
Dr Chris Pamplin looks at a recent ECtHR judgment that highlights the unfairness in judicial criticism of expert witnesses & offers a possible solution
  • Addressing the unfairness often seen with judicial criticism of experts.
  • The Hamid procedure.

One of the more serious sanctions an expert criticised by the court might face is a complaint being made to their professional body. Many will remember cases, such as that of Professor Roy Meadow and Dr Waney Squier (eg see ‘Confronting dogma’, 167 NLJ 7741, p19) where judicial criticism led to damaging proceedings before professional tribunals.

Unfairness of judicial criticism of experts

Given the often far-reaching effect of judicial criticism, it is, perhaps, surprising that experts subjected to it have little or no recourse to reply prior to a complaint being lodged. Their first opportunity to respond may come only once they face a duly constituted tribunal of their professional body. By that time, the damage may already have been done.

In the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision in Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (Valuation Officer) [2018] UKUT

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll