Insights into expert practice in different jurisdictions can be very helpful, not least because they often show that there are good and bad experts everywhere.  DHV v Motor Insurers’ Bureau was an unusual case about the compensation due to a pedestrian injured by an insured driver in Spain. Various quirks of the law and the claim meant that it was heard in the UK but the judge needed to apply the Spanish Baremo  system (ready-reckoner in English) to assess the size of the claim.

This meant that the judge had to consider the evidence of 8 Spanish experts specifically accident reconstruction, Spanish law, actuarial and medico-legal experts. The results can only be described as mixed bag.

At the top end of the scale the judge praised the Defendant’s actuarial expert as “knowledgeable and also very fair-minded” reaching some conclusions that favoured the Claimant. The Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert was also careful and measured in his evidence, “always at pains to alert the court to the limits of his evidence and expertise and when challenged over a gap in the evidence accepted that he should have covered the specific issue.   Similarly their expert in Spanish law was “aware of his limitations and balanced”.

The Claimant’s actuarial expert was somewhat less useful to the court, having applied a “mix and match” methodology rather than strictly following Baremo and their accident reconstruction expert, while being given credit by the judge for the difficulty of giving evidence through an interpreter, was unimpressive in parts and of little assistance to the court.

The quality of evidence  sadly had yet further to fall. The Claimant’s Spanish law  expert was  “in certain vital respects an unsatisfactory witness” . This expert had copied from a colleague’s report, without citing it, initially denied copying and then excused it as resulting from the use of a ‘central database’ of material. Sadly that excuse was fatally undermined by the presence of details specific to the case that appeared word for word in both reports.

Heading down the scale the Defendant’s medico-legal expert, while “an engaging and affable character “ and eager to try to assist the court, was “at points unbalanced in his conclusions, not motivated by a hostile attitude towards the claimant, but rather an insistent adherence to his opinion being right. There were occasions when he only accepted the conclusions of other experts with reluctance. “

And bringing up the rear his opposite number had not only failed to read both sets of medical reports, something the judge charitably attributed to a misconception, but replicated a significant passage from an article in his report without attributing it.  Rather than simply admitting the error  he compounded it by offering obviously incorrect explanations in oral evidence. While nothing critical turned on the article these issues “caused the court to think carefully about his openness”.

There are many lessons to be learned from this judge’s careful review of the expert evidence, not least that judges are much more interested in facts and careful analysis than they are by  confident presentation and advocacy.  As Dias J put it “This case was not short of advocates; it needed impartial expert advice.”

Established members will be familiar with the Academy’s training courses which include mock cross-examination to ensure that new experts are fully prepared, and would not make the mistakes cited here. If it’s been some time since you attended training it may be worth considering a refresher. For example, many experts rarely give evidence in court so a repeat of ‘Into Court’ might be handy if you have a court appearance looming.

Most of our training courses are now delivered online so your location doesn’t matter and members receive a 25% discount.  We can also run in-house training for larger consultancies, please contact us for details.