Australia: To write or not to write: the appropriateness of instruction letters with expert reports

Last Updated: 19 November 2018
Article by Ben Mahler

In this article, Ben Mahler, Director from our Sydney Office, discusses the increasing trend towards attaching letters of instruction that are contemporaneous with the completion of an expert's report.

BrisConnections Finance Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Arup Pty Limited [2017] FCA 1268


This judgment relates to proceedings in which the central allegation was that Arup were negligent in the preparation of traffic forecasts relied upon by BrisConnections.

This review considers only the obiter dictum comments on whether the practice of legal practitioners providing instruction letters to experts dated on or about the date of the expert's report is appropriate, with suggestions that this could render an expert's report inadmissible.

Obiter dictum comments

Justice Lee provided obiter dictum comments in relation to the timing of the letter of instruction to BrisConnections' expert (Mr Veitch). Justice Lee's comments are best summarised using his own words:

"A practice seems to have developed whereby a letter of instruction is provided contemporaneously (or near contemporaneously) with the finalisation of the expert report. Whether such a course actually complies with the requirements of FCR 23.13(1)(d) is open to question (although it is unnecessary to decide, given the absence of any objection on this basis)." [emphasis added]

He noted that in this instance the "Instruction Letter cannot be taken seriously", as it was provided after a year of the expert working "hand in glove" with solicitors and dated at a time when the expert's report was complete except for signatures, yet purported to:

  • introduce the solicitors;
  • request the expert review the pleadings by way of background;
  • enclose a disc and hard drives;
  • provide a copy of Practice Note CM7 (which apparently other evidence suggests it did not);
  • identify the questions the experts were to consider; and
  • request that they prepare a report.

Justice Lee was critical of the approach, stating that:

"The point of a letter of instruction being annexed to a report is not to act out a stylised ritual, but to provide the court with a transparent indication of what has been provided to the expert and the questions that the expert was actually asked to address. It should be able to be read literally without being silly. As is (at the very least) implicit in [the Federal Court rules relating to expert evidence], the work of the expert is to attend to the questions 'the expert was asked to address', not to invert the process by using the expert's specialised knowledge in order to identify the questions that should have been asked and the assumptions that should have been given."

"The integrity of the expert evidence process and the independence of experts is best facilitated by transparency in what is being asked of experts prior to, or at the time, they are forming their opinions and, if the questions need to change because they are misdirected, a record being made by way of supplementary instructions as to what has changed." [original emphasis]

He noted that the 'true instruction' of the expert was oral, and only emerged during oral evidence at trial.

Attaching a letter of instruction is not mandatory under the Federal Court Rules 2011, which states an expert must "identify the questions that the expert was asked to address" 1. However, the current Federal Court of Australia's Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN-EXPT) (which applies to any Federal Court proceeding) states that an expert shall be compliant with the rules if it:

  • complies with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct; and
  • additionally, attaches or exhibits "documents that record any instructions given to the expert."

Justice Lee noted that rule 23.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides that "a party may only call an expert at trial if the party has complied with Division 23.2 of the FCR." This suggests that, to the extent a judge finds the practice of providing instruction letters dated contemporaneously with the finalisation of an expert's report does not comply with the Federal Court Rules 2011, the report may be inadmissible.

An expert's perspective

In relation to the timing of a letter of instruction, Justice Lee's comments are not binding since he identified that it was unnecessary for him to consider the issue. However, there are some important potential implications that arise from his comments.

The role of oral instructions

There is no requirement that requires instructions to be provided in writing, other than perhaps the Federal Court of Australia's Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN EXPT) 5.2(c)(i), which indicates a report must "attach or exhibit instructions."

Even where a formal instruction letter is provided early in an engagement, experts may be provided additional instructions during an engagement. For example, when estimating the value of a company, an expert may be instructed during the course of the expert engagement to assume an average life of a company's assets to be 20 years for the purposes of calculating depreciation.

The need for these instructions is often unknowable at the time an expert is engaged, since it is the expert themselves who identifies that there are facts that must be proved by their engaging solicitors in support of their opinion.

For expediency, and to avoid contradictions and confusions in instructions, it is not uncommon for these instructions to be formalised into an 'instruction letter' issued contemporaneously to the finalisation of a report.

The evolutionary nature of case management

It is common for an expert to be approached on a matter when there are still uncertainties in relation to some aspects of the proceeding or the allegations being made by one or both 'sides'. This may be in the form of pleadings being amended, documents being discovered, and lay witness reports or statements being still in progress.

With modern case management timelines, it is more common than ever to be engaged to perform work while these areas are being finalised. An expert may be engaged when the appropriate questions are therefore not known, and where the information to be provided is still incomplete.

The role of experts

When commenting on the timing of the letter of instruction, Justice Lee stated that "the work of the expert is ... not to invert the process by using the expert's specialised knowledge in order to identify the questions that should have been asked and the assumptions that should have been given."

With respect, an important role for experts is to assist lawyers and their clients understand the issues on which the expert can legitimately provide an opinion (those being the matters that are within their expertise) and the limits of those opinions in relation to the issues which need to be established by the relevant party. Indeed, that lawyers and clients do not have a complete understanding of the appropriate questions to be put to an expert must be the rule rather than the exception, given that the role of the expert will typically relate to matters in which the lawyer or client is not an expert.

Clause 3.2 of the Federal Court of Australia's Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN EXPT), while including a valuable warning about 'inappropriate communications', also emphasises that lawyers should not feel compelled to engage a second 'consulting' expert to address such matters:

"A party or legal representative should be cautious not to have inappropriate communications when retaining or instructing an independent expert, or assisting an independent expert in the preparation of his or her evidence. However, it is important to note that there is no principle of law or practice and there is nothing in this practice note that obliges a party to embark on the costly task of engaging a 'consulting expert' in order to avoid 'contamination' of the expert who will give evidence. Indeed the Court would generally discourage such costly duplication." [emphasis added]

Of course, the roles that an individual with expertise relevant to a matter in dispute might play extend beyond the preparation and delivery of evidence before the court. The court has long recognised the (at times) valuable role of an expert who provides 'expert assistance' to lawyers and clients in the preparation of their cases. This was made plain by Justice Allsop in the seminal case of Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Sebel Furniture Ltd [2003] FCA 171 (which was for many years included as a footnote in the Federal Court of Australia's Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN EXPT)). As Justice Allsop said then, there was no reason why the same person could not undertake both that role and provide admissible expert evidence in the same matter3 :

"There may well have been great value in those preparing Sebel's case obtaining the views of [Mr R]. Such views would no doubt have assisted them in analysing and preparing the case and in marshalling and formulating arguments. That is the legitimate, accepted and well known role of expert assistance for a party preparing and running a case. Expert evidence in which a relevant opinion is given to the Court drawing on a witness' relevant expertise is quite another thing. There is no ethical reason why it cannot be given by the person providing assistance, as long as that person and the legal advisers understand and recognise the difference between the two tasks, and keep them separate."

Timing of instruction letters

Having said that, with a modicum of care and attention to the formulation of a 'confirmatory' instruction letter, the peculiar (if not bizarre) aspects of the instruction letter to which Justice Lee referred can be avoided. Plainly, such a letter should not suggest, in any way, that it forms the first communication with the expert, nor that the expert is receiving, for the first time, a copy of the requisite code of conduct (not least because, if that was indeed what was happening, it is likely that the resulting report would not have been prepared in compliance with the practice note). It should also not suggest that, for the first time, a vast array of information that plainly could not have been absorbed by an expert in the course of one 24 hour period is being provided to the expert. However, if the expert is retained at the start of an engagement using an instruction letter which reflects the (likely) uncertainty as to the scope of the engagement (and to which is attached the requisite code of conduct) and is then provided with a final instruction letter which records in one place the substance of all preceding oral instructions, the desired level of transparency to which Justice Lee refers may well be achieved.


Given the increasing trend towards attaching letters of instruction that are contemporaneous with the completion of an expert's report, it is likely that there will be future case law on this topic. In the interim, legal practitioners should consider the implications of Justice Lee's comments that this practice may represent non-compliance with the Federal Court Rules 2011 and result in the exclusion of an expert's evidence.
There are also the general potential negative inferences a judge may form due to perceived transparency issues of the nature to which Justice Lee refers.

Possible alternatives to dating instruction letters contemporaneous to the finalisation of an expert report include:

  • engaging a consulting expert to help draft questions to be put to an independent expert;
  • requesting an expert detail their instructions in the report rather than attaching an instruction letter. In the Federal Court, this should be considered in the context of GPN-EXPT;
  • issuing a generic instruction letter when appointing an expert, noting that specific instructions are to be provided orally; and
  • issuing a series of instruction letters, moving from a general brief to specific questions over time.


1 Federal Court Rules 2011, rule 23.13(1)(d).
2 Federal Court of Australia's Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN EXPT), 5.2.
3 The expert to whom Justice Allsop was referring in this matter was Andrew Ross, a Partner in KordaMentha Forensic's team.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ben Mahler
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions