header-logo header-logo

20 November 2014
Issue: 7631 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Expert witnesses under pressure

Nearly one third of expert witnesses say they have been put under pressure to alter a report in a way that damages their impartiality, research has shown.

Experiences included being asked to remove “damaging” sections of their report or being asked to re-write it in the client’s favour. Some experts said that solicitors had refused to pay them for their “unhelpful” report.

The shocking results were captured in a survey of 186 expert witnesses at the Bond Solon Annual expert Witness Conference in London in November. Experts are bound by civil, commercial and family procedural rules and have a duty to justice above their duty to any paying client.

However, one expert recalls: “Solicitors were asking for quoted GP notes entries to be changed. I always refused.” Another expert told how a solicitor told them “you have a duty to the court to do as instructed by the solicitor”, while another was threatened with liability for wasted costs if they refused to make changes.

An overwhelming 45% of experts said they had encountered what they believed to be “hired guns” in the past year, backing up a recent BBC Panorama investigation that found experts in handwriting, CCTV analysis and animal behaviour prepared to help clients hide the truth.

About one third of experts supported mandatory accreditation in their area, as the government is proposing in the area of whiplash claims, and 44% would like to see better regulation of experts. Tim Dutton QC, a guest speaker at the conference, told delegates it would be “difficult” to set up a separate regulatory entity for experts. Bond Solon director, Mark Solon also told NLJ last week that attempting to regulate one-off experts would be problematic.

Hourly rates ranged from £32 to £500 per hour, with an average of £177.

Issue: 7631 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll