The EWI held the annual Scottish Medicolegal Conference at the Grand Central Hotel in Glasgow on 18 September. The event featured great speakers and panels and lots of interaction with the audience of expert witnesses and legal professionals.

In the sixth article in the Working with expert witnesses series, Alexandra Winch a Partner at Stewarts, discusses her experience of joint expert meetings. 

We have revised our recently published Guidance for experts on acting for litigants in person. After engagement with members, we have decided to amend our advice on whether to act for litigants in person to balance more appropriately the importance of facilitating access to justice while retaining appropriate safeguards for experts. 

The Appellant, a citizen of Tajikistan, was appealing the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection claim. The Judge gained the distinct impression that the Appellant’s expert witness was simply advocating on behalf of the Appellant, rather than assisting the Tribunal by providing a critical, objective expert opinion on the context. In doing so, he trespassed into the role reserved for the Tribunal.

The applicant, who required leases over mineral rights, could not agree with the owners of those rights on compensation and valuation issues. The expert witnesses for both parties had previously acted as expert advisors to their clients. However, while one expert witness understood that their role was not to advocate for a particular party or outcome but to assist the court, the other expert was unable to disassociate their longstanding role as an expert advisor from their duties to the court.

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss acting for litigants in person. The accessibility of tools like generative AI is making litigation more accessible to unrepresented parties and it is increasingly likely that experts will be approached by litigant in person. We provide some advice for experts approached by a litigant in person and discuss how an expert should deal with the  situation where their previously represented party becomes a litigant in person. 

The trial dealt with liability issues relating to the alleged use of prohibited defeat devices. That is, devices which reduce the effectiveness of a vehicle’s emission control system for which there is no excuse or applicable exception. The judge criticised three of the expert witnesses for not complying with their duties under Part 35, and praised others.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant was in breach of the agreement between the parties for the supply of single alpha chain collagen. The judge was critical of the Claimant’s expert witnesses, in particular noting that he would have had to direct further accounting expert evidence be produced, if the evidence had been required.

In the fifth article in the Working with expert witnesses series, Richard Lodge a Partner at Stewarts, discusses his experience of working with Single Joint Experts. 

This year’s Annual Conference discussed AI, independence, credibility, transparency and the changing expectations on expert witnesses.