- Experts need to be cautious not to hide the use of any mentor or peer-review system.
The duties of an expert witness, as laid down in The Ikarian Reefer (National Justice Cia Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68, [1993] FSR 563) are well established and all expert witnesses should be familiar with them. Uppermost among these is that the expert owes an overriding duty to the court, before any obligation to the person from whom they had received instructions or payment, or to any commissioning organisation. Protocols dictate that experts must be independent, and their views should be given without outside influence and should be free of witness ‘coaching’.
What’s required?
In David Pinkus v Direct Line Group [2018] EWHC 1671 (QB) we have a recent example of a case in which an expert failed in this duty. As a result, the court gave a useful ruling on what is required.
The case involved two neuropsychologist expert witnesses. The claimant’s expert considered that the claimant’s
