Expert Witness issues have been a topic on this website before. Psychiatrists are not uncommonly called to give EW evidence before the courts. ‘Your GMC’ has introduced new rules about doctors entering ‘legal proceedings’.
Unbeknownst to most SC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch) in a 2,025 paragraph judgement, has led to a precedent that experts have a duty to disclose previous criticisms of their evidence. Para 1234 (not the only one) is of relevance.
[..] I have no means of knowing whether he did in fact do so, but I consider that he should have ensured that this information was made available to the Bank and the court much earlier than he did. In that respect he was in breach of his own personal duty to the court. This failing made an evaluation of the credibility of his evidence a more difficult task than would otherwise have been the case.
I have mixed feelings about this:
A - on the one hand this could force a bunch of hired guns to disclose all their criticisms in an appendix to their reports - if they really want do the EW work. It would probably deter some of those types.
B - on the other hand, it could also discourage EW’s from taking on cases if they amassed say 5 or so criticisms.
C - this could impact on EWs overall creating greater fear, flushing out ‘cowboys’ who do their £500 per pop, and then increasing costs for EW engagement.
I mean personally I wouldn’t mind cuz I would have less competition from ‘cowboys’ and ‘hired guns’. It could be good the likes of me who reject 90% of all attempts at instruction.
What do others think about the judgement (easily findable on via Google)?