 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The requirement of "relevance" is approached broadly. It has been explained by
Evans-Lombe J as "meaning ‘helpful' to the Court in arriving at its conclusions."
His Lordship added that where the evidence and the witness met the "qualifying"
conditions, the evidence :-
"...... can still be excluded by the Court if the Court takes the view that calling it will not be
helpful to the Court in resolving any issue in the case justly. Such evidence will not be
helpful where the issue to be decided is one of law or is otherwise one on which the Court is
able to come to a fully informed decision without hearing such evidence."
If the court considers that the evidence sought to be adduced as expert evidence fails
to satisfy one or more of the three conditions mentioned above, it may exclude it as
inadmissible. However, as pointed out by Butler-Sloss LJ in Re M and R (minors)
[1996] 4 All ER 239, it may not be necessary for the court to engage itself in detailed
arguments as to admissibility at the trial since it can deal with evidence of contested
relevance by assigning it such weight as it deserves :-
"If the expert's opinion is clearly irrelevant, [the Judge] will say so. But if arguably relevant
but in his view ultimately unhelpful, he can generally prevent its reception by indicating that
the expert's answer to the question would carry little weight with him. The modern view is to
regulate such matters by way of weight, rather than admissibility."
Notes
Barings plc (in liquidation) v Coopers & Lybrand, et al (supra), at §23.
At §45.
At 254.
|
 |
|