CJR Final Report, Section 20: Expert evidence

With few exceptions,

the respondents to the consultation were opposed to Proposal

The proposal was thought objectionable because :-

(a)

it would inject distrust between a party and his lawyers on the one hand and the

experts on the other, exacerbated by making the parties bear the costs of the

expert's approach to the court;

(b)

it espouses a procedure that is not transparent and prevents impartial justice

from being seen to be done;

(c)

it is likely to erode legal professional privilege;

(d)

it would promote the use (and expense) of a second set of advisers to monitor

the expert engaged in the court proceedings;

(e)

professional experts would in any event be reluctant to take the step in question

as they might never be instructed again;

(f)

it is in any event an unnecessary procedure since an expert in a difficult position

could simply raise the point with the party or his legal advisers and have them,

if necessary, approach the court for directions, resigning or threatening

resignation if they refuse to address the difficulty.

Notes

The APAA (if a code was established), the HKIA and a firm of solicitors.

Those expressing opposition included the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, the AE, the

LAD, the HKMLA, the BCC, the HKIS, one set of barristers' chambers, a solicitors' firm and an

individual respondent.