August EWJ 24 - Flipbook - Page 28
his evidence. It became clear over the course of the
case that he had not carried out any specific inspection of the property in relation to the court’s criteria,
instead relying on data and photos from an older inventory report. He maintained views based on this report in the face of recent contradictory evidence,
leading the court to question his independence. This
suggestion was supported by the expert’s refusal to
answer certain questions from the counsel and challenges to factual evidence presented by the Claimant’s
expert.
When experts are involved in multiple capacities, such
as advising on repairs and overseeing works, transparency becomes crucial to maintain the trust of the
court.
Credibility
The credibility of expert witnesses hinges on their
authority in the field, competence, and methodology.
In the built environment where technical expertise is
paramount, a credible expert needs to possess not
only the right role and accreditations, but specific and
in-depth knowledge of the subject matter at hand. For
example, a surveyor called as an expert witness in a dilapidations claim should conduct a thorough and professional inspection of the property, demonstrating
their methodology and professional standards while
gathering evidence that is specific to the case.
Accusations of Bias
It is notable that the Defendant sought to discredit the
Claimant’s expert evidence based on the fact that he
had worked closely with the landlord previously and
had already been contracted to work on the dilapidations claim. The Defendant felt that this impeded the
expert’s ability to give independent and unbiased evidence. However, the judge dismissed this as a conflict
of interest, feeling that it was entirely reasonable that
having completed his report on the property and presented his evidence, he could be appointed to oversee
necessary works. The court’s overruling in this respect
was based on the Claimant’s expert’s measured and
independent presentation of his findings, including
making concessions to opposing evidence, which
showed him to be working with the court rather than
for his own gain.
Coldunell v Hotel Management illustrates the court’s
reservations when an expert lacks credibility, such as
when the tenant’s expert used out-of-date evidence to
support his arguments. If he had conducted his own
inspection of the property under dispute, his conclusions would have had a more credible basis. By refusing to concede to the substantial body of evidence
presented by the opposition, the expert only damaged
his credibility further.
The court also praised the landlord’s expert for
accepting the limits of his knowledge rather than arguing in an area where he wasn’t an expert. To enhance credibility, experts must be able to demonstrate
in-depth knowledge, but also be willing to transparently communicate the limitations of their knowledge.
The court’s final ruling underscored the importance
of independent, credible and measured expert evidence, urging adherence to the guidelines in CPR Part
35.
Measured Presentation
A measured and thoughtful presentation of evidence
enhances its impact on the court. The ability to convey
complex technical information in a clear and accessible manner distinguishes a skilled expert witness, and
makes their professional opinions more compelling.
Factors Influencing the Quality of Expert Evidence
It’s clear that in cases involving the built environment,
the quality of expert evidence significantly influences
outcomes, not to mention the cost of the financial imperatives to follow. In the case of Coldunell Ltd v
Hotel Management International Ltd three crucial
factors were highlighted by the judges as playing pivotal roles in shaping the effectiveness of each experts’
testimony.
Coldunell praised the claimant’s surveyor for delivering evidence in a forthright and measured manner.
This approach instils confidence in the court, demonstrating the expert’s commitment to an unbiased and
transparent presentation of findings. Experts must
strive to avoid undue aggression, and maintain composure under cross-examination.
Independence
Independence is a crucial cornerstone of credible
expert evidence. To demonstrate independence, an
expert witness needs to provide impartial, unbiased
opinions, free from any external influence. In the built
environment, where complex property disputes such
as dilapidations claims often unfold, demonstrable
independence ensures that expert opinions align
with the pursuit of truth rather than advocacy for a
particular party.
In comparison, the defendant’s surveyor was criticised
for his attitude in court, with the court describing him
as “obstructive, argumentative and defensive in his answers to cross-examination”. This sort of presentation
could tarnish even the most credible evidence, suggesting that the expert had a vested interest in the outcome of the case rather than an independent interest
in assisting the court.
The Coldunell Ltd v Hotel Management International Ltd
case underscores the court’s scrutiny of an expert’s
dual roles, highlighting the necessity for a clear
demonstration of independence. A legal opponent
who lacks compelling evidence may rely on discrediting your evidence to weaken your claim, so it’s important to be ready with evidence-based arguments
that legitimise your expert’s claim to independence.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
CPR Part 35: Expert Witness Best Practices
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35 establishes
guidelines for expert evidence presentation in legal
proceedings. In the context of built environment
claims such as Coldunell Ltd v Hotel Management
International Ltd, adherence to these rules is crucial
for presenting credible and impartial evidence and
ensuring fair and effective dispute resolution.
26
AUGUST 2024
