find the latest legal job
Part Time Risk & Compliance Officer
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· Brisbane City · Flexible Part Time Hours
View details
Infrastructure Lawyer/SA
Category: Construction Law | Location: Sydney CBD, Inner West & Eastern Suburbs Sydney NSW
· Global elite law firm · Dedicated Infrastructure team
View details
Property Lawyer
Category: Property Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· 12 Month Contract · Diverse Work
View details
Family Lawyer
Category: Family Law | Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Boutique Firm · Great Reputation
View details
Infrastructure Lawyers
Category: Construction Law | Location: All Perth WA
· We'd be particularly interested to hear from you if you were a lawyer who knows your way around the infrastructure and energy sectors.
View details
In my expert judgement…

In my expert judgement…

A government-appointed committee has decided claims of expert witness bias are exaggerated and measures to rein in their over-use are now largely in place. Shaun Drummond reportsTwo years after…

A government-appointed committee has decided claims of expert witness bias are exaggerated and measures to rein in their over-use are now largely in place. Shaun Drummond reports

Two years after the NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus responded to media reports of widespread bias among expert witnesses by asking the state’s Law Reform Commission (LRC) to examine whether tougher rules should be imposed, a further year-long inquiry has concluded the risks of doing so would outweigh the benefits.

However, the Attorney-General’s Working Party on Civil Procedure has agreed that joint expert witnesses, or “parties’ expert witness”, as they are to be called, should be allowed and ‘no win, no fee’ agreements between experts and the parties will have to be disclosed to the court.

The changes were agreed to by the Uniform Civil Procedure Committee, which has the ultimate say on amendments to NSW’s Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and these were amended late last year.

Despite indications from the Attorney-General that he was unhappy the LRC had not chosen to recommend stronger measures to punish experts for unethical or inappropriate behaviour in court, in several areas the Working Party decided even less action than proposed by the Commission was necessary.

When the LRC’s report was referred to the Working Party in December 2005, a spokesperson told Lawyers Weekly, “we were particularly interested to see what the [LRC] report was going to say about sanctions, and we thought the report could have gone a little bit further and that’s why we are now seeking [further] information on that” (see Lawyers Weekly issue 269, December 2 2005).

At the time, at least one high-profile court case — Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd — had seen evidence emerge that appeared to show expert witnesses changing views to suit the case of the lawyers who had hired them.

In his report, however, the chair of the Working Party, NSW Supreme Court Justice John Hamilton, says the rarity of unethical or inappropriate behaviour by experts did not warrant stronger measures to discipline them.

Even the LRC’s recommendation to merely inform experts of the existing sanctions available was seen as unnecessary. In addition, the Working Party found the LRC had incorrectly assumed that costs orders could be made against experts for inappropriate conduct.

“The report proceeds on the misapprehension that there is already power in the courts to order costs against an expert witness,” Justice Hamilton said. In fact, he said it was apparent on a reading of the Civil Procedure Act and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules that “there is no such power”.

He said the Working Party debated whether this sanction should be added to the Civil Procedure Rules, as well as whether experts should be made aware of the sanctions available. It came to the conclusion that in the Party’s “centuries” of combined experience in the courts, the need to use sanctions against experts was so rare that the benefits of imposing these proposals would outweigh the risks that experts would be deterred from giving evidence.

“None of the members [of the Working Party], to his or her recollection, had in fact been involved in any case where an order for costs against an expert witness appeared to be called for,” Justice Hamilton said.

“Balancing the rarity of occasions for the imposition of the sanction against the risk of its availability causing experts to withdraw themselves from giving reports”, he said the Working Party felt there was no need for new sanctions or to “wave” the sanctions “under the nose of prospective witnesses”.

The Working Party agreed with the LRC that so-called “no win, no fee” arrangements between experts and the lawyers who hire them should be disclosed to the court, but said an automatic disclosure of all fee arrangements could, once again, lead to a “diminution in the pool of persons available as expert witnesses”.

Justice Hamilton said there was a perception in England that the pool of available medical witnesses had recently shrunk after a doctor was struck off the court register of experts, but later reinstated, for giving “erroneous evidence” in a criminal case in the Court of Appeal.

The Working Party also decided against implementing the LRC proposal that no expert evidence should be given either at trial or in interlocutory proceedings without the permission of the court.

Justice Hamilton said the LRC’s view is based on the recommendations of the Woolf Report in England, which conducted a similar inquiry into expert witnesses in the mid-1990s.

“As I understand it, the rule was cast in this form by Lord Woolf as a shock tactic to confront the situation he saw in England in the 1990s of partiality and proliferation of expert witnesses in court proceedings,” Justice Hamilton said.

“One thing to be borne in mind … is the difference in context between England in 1995 and in NSW in 2006.” In the intervening period, he said the state had strengthened case management powers “enormously” and he felt the “shock of the new is not as necessary in NSW in 2006 as it was in England in 1995”.

As well as the Civil Procedure Act and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, he said “we have introduced rules that compel the exchange of expert reports and the use of the reports as evidence in chief; that prescribe a code of conduct for expert witnesses; that provide for compulsory conferences between experts; and the giving of evidence concurrently by more than one expert.”

Justice Hamilton said one of the most significant changes agreed to is to implement the LRC’s recommendation allowing parties to agree to appoint their own single expert. However, the ability of the court itself to appoint an expert will remain, and he said where the court had appointed a single expert already on a particular issue, contrary to the LRC’s view, the present rule that no further evidence could then be called would remain.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

In my expert judgement…
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Nov 17 2017
It's time for politicians to commit to eradicating domestic violence
The national shame of domestic violence cannot be left unaddressed, writes Christine Smyth. ...
Nov 16 2017
From lawyer in law firm to senior governance professional
Promoted by Governance Institute of Australia As a law graduate, Kate Griffiths never imagined...
marriage equality
Nov 16 2017
Legislation the next hurdle for marriage equality
Lawyers have underscored the importance of ensuring same-sex marriage legislation does not limit ant...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...