ARTICLE
24 October 2018

Pinkus V Direct Line Group Qbd (Judge Cotter QC) 02/01/2018

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
Experts and peer review arrangements
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Experts and peer review arrangements

The parties' respective experts had arranged to have a joint discussion. It subsequently became apparent to the Defendant's expert (when an email was sent to him in error) that the Claimant's expert had been seeking advice from one of her colleagues about certain points in the experts' joint statement. An issue then arose as to whether the discussions between the expert and her colleague were privileged.

The Claimant's expert had informed the court that her firm had a peer supervision arrangement in place. The judge considered that if it was becoming commonplace for there to be undisclosed arrangements in relation to "supervision" in the preparation of expert evidence (and, in particular, supervision which may alter the content of the report) that was "a very worrying development". He highlighted the importance of disclosing to the court and the other side if the expert's evidence has been "bolstered or added to" by a third party. Further, it was held that communications between an expert and a third party (other than the expert on the other side) are not privileged.

When instructing experts, a party should clarify who, in addition to the expert, might be involved in the preparation of the expert's report and remind the expert to check and adopt the analysis or conclusions of anyone to whom they have delegated work. This case is a reminder also to check, where the expert works as part of a group practice, whether a peer supervision or review arrangement is in place, especially since communications between the expert and their supervisor will not be privileged.

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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More