Page Title

this has been restricted by permanent injury, the expert should be keen to restrict his opinion to an assessment of the Claimant's competence at continuing to fulfil his work duties rather than passing an opinion upon the general labour market either in the geographical area or in the Claimant's particular field or work.

16.19 The court of appeal has recently considered the previously widespread use of engineers and accident reconstruction experts in road traffic cases. In Liddell v. Middleton³⁰ Stuart Smith L.J considered experts who stray outside their field of expertise:

"An expert is only qualified to give exert evidence on a relevant matter, if his knowledge and expertise relate to a matter which is outside the knowledge and expertise of a layman."³¹

16.20 An example of an expert stepping outside his field of expertise and usurping the role of the judge occurred in Liddell. The expert considered and commented on the lay witnesses statements and passed comment on them. Stuart-Smith L.J criticised that practice:

"We do not have trial by expert in this country, we have trial by judge."³²

16.21 Truth An expert should always tell the truth. If he has any concern about the content of his report then he should make that concern clear in the report and in his evidence.

"In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report."³³

16.22 The best example of this rule is contained in CPR 35 PD1.2 which requires the expert to give the range of opinions available and to give reason for his opinion. If no range of opinion is given the expert has not assisted the court with making clear the options available.

The experts presentation in court and on paper is considered in the subsequent