header-logo header-logo

Who should bear the cost of experts’ mistakes?

16 August 2018 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7806 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7806_pamplin

Is a Crown expert witness part of the team or independent? Chris Pamplin looks at the costs implications

  • The CPS does not bear costs liability for the errors of its experts, Sharp LJ held in R v Aylesbury Crown Court.

When considering orders for costs against one or other of the parties, it is reasonable for the court to take into consideration the conduct of the parties and any failures or omissions made by them. It might seem reasonable that this extends to the activities of all persons involved on the party’s behalf, including expert witnesses. In this respect, then, one might think that expert witnesses are indivisible from the ‘legal team’.

This was the view taken by the Crown Court sitting at Aylesbury, whose cost order against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the subject of an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for judicial review. The DPP’s application was made following an order that the CPS pay the defendant’s costs following the collapse

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

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll