Expert Evidence in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Whitehouse (A.P.) (Suing by his Mother and Next Friend Eileen Whitehouse) v Jordan and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Feb 1981

    While some degree of consultation between experts and legal advisers is entirely proper, it is necessary that expert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation. To the extent that it is not, the evidence is likely to be not only incorrect but self defeating.

  • HK v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Jul 2006

    28. Further, in many asylum cases, some, even most, of the appellant's story may seem inherently unlikely but that does not mean that it is untrue. The ingredients of the story, and the story as a whole, have to be considered against the available country evidence and reliable expert evidence, and other familiar factors, such as consistency with what the appellant has said before, and with other factual evidence (where there is any) .

  • SI (expert evidence - Kurd - SM confirmed)
    • Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
    • 07 May 2008

    However, its failure to do so cannot imbue expert evidence submitted by an appellant with any greater value than it merits when considered alongside the rest of the evidence. In general, the Tribunal take the view that a country expert's opinion is to be given significant weight and if the Tribunal decides to come to a different view from an expert on key matters, proper reasons must be given.

  • Sd (Expert Evidence)
    • Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
    • 17 Jul 2008

    The fact that an expert has included a quote attributing it to a report which does not in fact include that quote, raises questions about the accuracy of the expert's reports in other respects.

  • R (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 03 Jul 2002

    It is always desirable that an expert should have no actual or apparent interest in the outcome of the proceedings in which he gives evidence, but such disinterest is not automatically a precondition to the admissibility of his evidence. The question of whether the proposed expert should be permitted to give evidence should then be determined in the course of case management.

  • MOJ and Others (Return to Mogadishu)
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 09 Set 2014

    Thus in the contemporary era the subject of expert evidence and experts' reports is heavily regulated. The principles, rules and criteria highlighted above are of general application. They apply to experts giving evidence at every tier of the legal system. They are reflected in the Senior President's Practice Direction No 10 (2010) which, in paragraph 10, lays particular emphasis on a series of duties.

  • Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Company
    • House of Lords
    • 02 Nov 1978

    No matter what profession it may be, the common law does not impose on those who practise it any liability for damage resulting from what in the result turn out to have been errors of judgment, unless the error was such as no reasonably well-informed and competent member of that profession could have made. So too the common law makes allowance for the difficulties in the circumstances in which professional judgments have to be made and acted upon.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT