Expert Evidence Flashcards
(15 cards)
Who must receive a copy of instructions sent to a single joint expert?
A) Only the expert
B) Only the court
C) Both parties
D) The judge
C) Both parties
Explanation: Full transparency is required — all correspondence with a single joint expert must be copied to both sides.
If two experts agree on issues after discussion, is the agreement binding on the parties?
A) Yes, automatically
B) Yes, if the court orders
C) No, unless the parties expressly agree
D) Only if both experts are from the same field
C) No, unless the parties expressly agree
Explanation: Expert agreements are not binding unless the parties choose to be bound.
If a party wants to swap experts after disclosure of an unfavourable report, what must they do?
A) Ignore the first report
B) Serve the second report without permission
C) Submit both reports and rely on the better one
D) Apply to the court for permission and disclose the original report
D) Apply to the court for permission and disclose the original report
Explanation: The court controls expert changes to prevent expert shopping; the original report must usually be disclosed.
To whom does an expert owe their overriding duty?
A) The Court
B) The Instructing Party
C) The Paying Party
D) Their Professional Body
A) The Court
Explanation: Under CPR 35.3, the expert’s overriding duty is to assist the court impartially, not the party instructing them.
When is the court most likely to consider granting permission for a party to rely on expert evidence?
A) At the Disclosure Stage
B) After Trial
C) At the Final Hearing
D) At the Case Management Conference
D) At the Case Management Conference
Explanation: The Case Management Conference (CMC) is the usual point when the court considers whether expert evidence is needed.
What test does the court apply to decide whether expert evidence should be permitted?
A) Whether it is helpful to one party
B) Whether it has persuasive value
C) Whether it is necessary to support pleadings
D) Whether it is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings
D) Whether it is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings
Explanation: CPR 35.1 requires that expert evidence must be reasonably required to resolve the proceedings fairly.
After a failed expert report, the claimant wants to instruct a second expert without telling the court about the first report. What will the court most likely require if permission to use the second expert is sought?
A) Nothing, fresh experts are always allowed
B) Disclosure of the original expert’s report
C) An apology from the first expert
D) Strike out of both reports
B) Disclosure of the original expert’s report
Explanation: To prevent expert shopping, the original report must usually be disclosed if a party switches experts.
Following discussions, two experts agree on the likely cause of damage in a case. One party disagrees with the expert’s agreement. Can they ignore the experts’ joint statement?
A) Yes, they are never bound unless expressly agreed
B) No, the court automatically binds them
C) Yes, but they must still disclose their reasons
D) No, unless they file an immediate appeal
A) Yes, they are never bound unless expressly agreed
Explanation: Experts’ agreements during meetings do not bind the parties unless they expressly agree to be bound.
A single joint expert was appointed in a small claim. After receiving the report, one party believes the expert misunderstood the documents. What should they do first?
A) Apply to strike out the expert
B) Ask written clarification questions within 28 days
C) Instruct a second expert immediately
D) Cross-examine the expert without permission
B) Ask written clarification questions within 28 days
Explanation: CPR 35.6 allows one set of written questions within 28 days to clarify an expert’s report.
A witness claims they saw the defendant “driving dangerously fast” but does not have any training in speed estimation. Will this be admissible?
A) No, because they are not an expert
B) No, because it’s opinion evidence
C) Yes, because it conveys perceived facts
D) Yes, because the judge can guess speed
C) Yes, because it conveys perceived facts
Explanation: Ordinary witnesses may give opinions like “driving fast” if it simply conveys what they perceived with their senses.
Sarah wants to challenge an opponent’s hearsay witness who is not attending trial. What must Sarah do if she wants to cross-examine that absent witness?
A) File a Defence
B) Request directions under CPR 31
C) Apply for permission under CPR 33.4
D) Send written questions
C) Apply for permission under CPR 33.4
Explanation: To cross-examine a hearsay witness who will not appear, Sarah must apply under CPR 33.4 within 14 days.
An expert relied on a confidential client instruction that is wrong and has not summarised it properly in their report. What can the opposing party do?
A) Force disclosure of the instruction letter
B) Discredit the expert’s qualifications
C) Strike out the expert immediately
D) Ignore it and proceed to trial
A) Force disclosure of the instruction letter
Explanation: If instructions appear inaccurate, the court can order inspection of the instructions (CPR 35.10(4)).
If an expert needs court clarification during their work, how should they proceed?
A) Write a private letter to the judge
B) Submit a formal request for directions to the court
C) Email the opposing party
D) Withdraw from the case
B) Submit a formal request for directions to the court
Explanation: Experts can seek directions under CPR 35.14 if they need help carrying out their role.
After disclosure of expert reports, a party believes its expert has acted outside their expertise. What can the party argue?
A) Refuse to continue the case
B) Challenge the opposing expert immediately
C) Argue that the agreement should not bind the parties
D) Change their legal team
C) Argue that the agreement should not bind the parties
Explanation: If an expert exceeds their role, the party can argue that any agreement is invalid.
What is ‘hot-tubbing’ in civil trials involving expert evidence?
A) Experts testify simultaneously and answer questions together
B) Experts relax before giving evidence
C) Experts give private opinions to the judge
D) Experts are cross-examined twice
A) Experts testify simultaneously and answer questions together
Explanation: Hot-tubbing means concurrent expert evidence on the same issues for efficiency and clarity.
