04 October 2022 Wiebke Morgan 2012 News EVANS v R&V ALLGEMEINE VERSICHERUNG AG [2022] EWHC 2436 (QB) byWiebke Morgan This case is of interest as it highlightes that issues can also arise around the instructing party’s use of an expert witness report. It shows the importance of making sure that any corrections the expert witness may have provided to a report have been incorporated correctly. From the judgement: "38. It is unfortunate that at this stage I need to mention how the defendant expert evidence of Dr Weyde was presented before the court. Dr Weyde is a German expert engineer who speaks English to a very high level. He did not seek the assistance of an interpreter to give oral evidence. His report had originally been written in German and then been translated and was certified as correct. However at the commencement of his oral evidence he was keen to make the point that he did not accept that the translation was wholly correct. Over the course of perhaps an hour he went through in significant detail some minor and some more significant amendments to the translated versions. He said that he had provided these corrections to his instructing solicitors. During a short adjournment it became apparent that there had been a discussion between the parties previously when the joint statement of the experts was being prepared and the defendant solicitors had confirmed that the certified translation was the correct one. How it came about therefore that Dr Weyde was seeking to amend or correct the certified translation remains unclear. The defendantäs solicitors had stood by the certified version. As such that is the one that I was bound to consider (it would not be fair on the claimant to do otherwise in circumstances where they had no opportunity to check that the translation was correct). I do not reflect upon this to conclude the Dr Weyde’s evidence is weakened by this unfortunate situation. I do however reflect that it was entirely unsatisfactory and caused delay in the conduct and progress of this trial. 39. A further point that should be made in relation to Dr Weyde’s evidence is that he is certified as an expert within the German courts; it was explained by him that the approach there is a different one. Dr Weyde explained that in Germany he would be appointed as a single expert for the court (as opposed, as he said, as an expert for the defendant) and in effect his conclusions are likely to be determinative. He therefore made assumptions in favour of the claimant rather than the defendant in such circumstances. Whilst Dr Weyde’s approach in this case was of course as a CPR Part 35 expert I recognise in assessing his evidence, that his evidence did appear to be seeking to be determinative. 40. It is useful to start by looking at what is agreed between the experts in this case. The experts joint report was prepared by exchange of emails and was apparently prepared in English and therefore no translation issues arose. " For the full judgement, see link below. More links Case at National Archives link to case Share Print Tags Expert evidenceExpert ReportForeign jurisdiction10. Report Writing14. Giving Oral Evidence Related articles A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531 Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) How not to use AI in expert evidence Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) Switch article Bitar v Bank of Beirut SAL [2022] EWHC 2163 (QB) Previous Article Pickett v Balkind [2022] EWHC 2226 (TCC) Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.