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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll