Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The 1975 Federal Rules of Evidence (US) did not refer to the Frye test.
- 2.
A pilot program was established in Manchester Specialist courts between 2010 and 2013 with His Honour Judge David Waksman QC, the Manchester Mercantile Judge overseeing the pilot, as he then was. Professor Dame Hazel Genn monitored the pilot and published findings in the Civil Justice Quarterly, “Getting to the Truth: Experts and Judges in the ‘Hot Tub’” (2013) 32 CJQ 275–299 (Genn 2012). From 1 April 2013, in the United Kingdom Practice Direction 35 was adopted into the Civil Procedure Rules.
References
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 York
Freckelton I, Selby H (2009) Expert evidence – law, practice, procedure and advocacy, 4th edn. Thomson Reuters, Sydney
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
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, Sydney
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Glossary
- 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.
- Court rules
-
Rules of procedure applied to court proceedings.
- Litigation
-
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.
- Opinion evidence
-
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
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Silvester, H.M. (2017). Expert Opinion and Legal Considerations. In: Müller, B., et al. Handbook of Human Motion. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30808-1_85-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30808-1_85-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30808-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30808-1
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Expert Opinion and Legal Considerations- Published:
- 20 July 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30808-1_85-2
-
Original
Expert Opinion and Legal Considerations- Published:
- 23 May 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30808-1_85-1