Expert Opinion and Legal Considerations
This chapter provides practical assistance to experts who may be required to give evidence in court. It explores the development of law and rules that apply in several jurisdictions. In particular, the legal principles are examined in the context of an Australian jurisdiction which is at the forefront of the relatively new practice in this area – concurrent expert evidence. Important elements are the reliability of expert opinion, the source of knowledge, training and experience, as well as procedural aspects. It is prepared as at October 2016.
KeywordsOpinion evidence Court rules Litigation Concurrent evidence
A procedure where experts in the same field, each separately qualified by the parties to litigation, give evidence jointly as a panel in court. They identify areas of agreement and disagreement in a joint report before trial. At trial each expert comments on the opinion of the other experts and advocates for the parties also question them. The judge acts as a chairperson and ultimately decides the issues.
Rules of procedure applied to court proceedings.
The process of dispute resolution by the members of courts or tribunals based upon admissible evidence presented by advocates for the parties to the dispute.
Evidence based upon a person’s trainingstudy or experience. It is given initially in writing by an expert and subject to oral or written review by peers, court advocates, and judges based upon applicable court rules.
- Branson JC (2006) Expert evidence: a judge’s perspective. Bar News, NSW Bar Association, Sydney, summer 2006/2007 pp. 32–38. Available online http://archive.nswbar.asn.au/docs/resources/publications/bn/bn_summer0607.pdf
- Conley I, Moriarty I (2011) Scientific and expert evidence, 2nd edn. Wolters Kluwer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Freckelton I, Selby H (2009) Expert evidence – law, practice, procedure and advocacy, 4th edn. Thomson Reuters, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- Garling JP (2011) Concurrent expert evidence – reflections and development. Paper presented at the Australian Insurance Law Association, Twilight Seminar Series, Sydney, 17 August 2011. Available online http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/garling170811.pdf
- Garling JP (2015) Concurrent expert evidence – the new South Wales experience. Paper presented at the University of Oxford Faculty of Law, Oxford, 1 December 2015. Available online http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Speeches/2015%20Speeches/Garling_20151201.pdf
- Genn DH (2012) Manchester concurrent evidence pilot – Interim Report, UCL Judicial Institute, London, January 2012. Available online https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/concurrent-evidence-interim-report.pdf
- Genn DH (2013) Getting to the truth: experts and judges in the ‘Hot Tub’. CJQ 32:275–299Google Scholar
- Jackson LJ (2016) Concurrent evidence – a gift from Australia. Paper presented at the conference of the Commercial Bar Association of Victoria, London, 29 June 2016. Available online https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lj-jackson-concurrent-expert-evidence.pdf
- McLellan JP (2007) Concurrent evidence. Paper presented at the medicine and law conference of the Law Institute of Victoria, Melbourne, 29 November 2007. Available online http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/mcclellan_2007.11.29.pdf
- Odgers S (2014) Uniform evidence law, 11th edn. Thomson Reuters, SydneyGoogle Scholar