Summary
The judge found that it was not valid for the claimants to object to the wording of a question for the expert witness marine engineers because it invited the experts to express an opinion on a matter of fact which is ultimately for the court.
Learning point
The case
The case involved a near collision between two ships which led to damage to the claimants’ ship. The defendants had demonstrated a prima facie case that there was a malfunction of the main engine or its control system which prevented the crew of the claimants’ ship from putting the main engine into reverse. The claimants denied that a malfunction had occurred.
The issues were:
-
Whether the main engine malfunctioned,
-
If so, why, and
-
Whether, and if so to what extent, the crew of the claimants’ ship knew or ought to have known about it.
Expert evidence
The claimants raised two objections to the wording of the question for the expert marine engineers:
-
That the first part of the wording invited the experts to express an opinion on a matter of fact which is ultimately for the court, and
-
The use of the word “defectively” in the question.
The judge dismissed these objections and approved the defendants’ wording, which had initially been agreed by the claimants. There was, the judge stated, no objection in the experts expressing an opinion on a matter of fact that is ultimately for the court noting “Experts often do that. The question whether the main engine malfunctioned is one which involved or resorts to expert input, so there is nothing inappropriate in them being free to express their views on this.”
The judge also noted that the use of the word “defectively” seemed to encapsulate neatly the relevant inquiry, while the wording proposed by the claimant was “somewhat vague and at one remove from the real guts of the issue which the experts must confront.”