The High Court’s judgment in Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others [2026] EWHC 1753 (KB) is a useful reminder that technical expertise, however impressive, is only part of the job of an expert witness.

The litigation involved a huge amount of highly technical expert evidence across a number of disciplines. What is particularly interesting is the contrast in the judge’s assessment of the experts themselves.

Some were praised for the quality and fairness of their evidence. Others attracted criticism over aspects of their compliance with Part 35.

That contrast matters because the experts involved were not lacking in technical expertise. They were experienced specialists dealing with complex issues in major litigation.

The point is rather that being an expert in your field and being an effective expert witness are not quite the same thing.

Under CPR Part 35, an expert’s role is to assist the court on matters within their expertise. That duty overrides any obligation to the person instructing or paying them.

Practice Direction 35 goes further. Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation, and experts should consider all material facts, including those which might detract from their opinions.

Those requirements affect far more than the declaration at the end of a report.

They affect how the expert approaches the evidence in the first place.

An expert needs to be able to distinguish between what they know, what they have been told and what they have inferred. They need to consider material which may not support the position of the party instructing them. They need to explain the basis for their conclusions and, where appropriate, acknowledge that there may be a legitimate range of professional opinion.

Perhaps most importantly, they need to remain willing to reconsider their conclusions as the evidence develops.

That may sound elementary to experienced expert witnesses. But the significance of the Mercedes-Benz judgment is that these issues arose in extremely sophisticated litigation involving highly experienced specialists.

The technical complexity of the subject matter did not lessen the importance of the expert’s procedural and professional duties.

If anything, it made them more important.

Where the underlying issues are difficult for a court to evaluate without specialist assistance, the court is particularly dependent upon the expert presenting that specialist knowledge independently, fairly and in a way that can be understood and tested.

That is why the quality of expert evidence cannot be measured simply by the expert’s qualifications or standing in their profession.

The court also needs to be able to trust the process by which the opinion has been reached.

The Academy’s guidance on party-appointed experts reflects this. The expert’s role is to provide unbiased opinion within their expertise and not to assume the role of advocate.

The Academy’s Code of Practice for Experts similarly places independence, impartiality, objectivity and integrity at the centre of expert practice.

And because much of the expert’s evidence will ultimately be contained in the report, the Academy’s Model Form of Expert Report is designed to help experts present their reasoning in a form which assists the court. The Academy’s The Expert’s Report training also deals specifically with compliance, professional guidance and the practical preparation of expert evidence.

The broader lesson from the Mercedes-Benz litigation is fairly simple.

An expert witness brings two kinds of expertise to court: expertise in their professional field, and expertise in performing the role of an expert witness.

The first does not automatically provide the second.

Judgment

A High Court decision provides a useful warning for professionals who become expert witnesses in matters in which they have already been involved.

In MSA Properties Ltd v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB), the court had to resolve a dispute concerning deteriorated structural joists in a building in Northampton. Both parties relied on structural engineering evidence.

The point of wider interest for experts concerns the defendant’s expert, who had already been involved in the matter before the litigation.

He inspected the building in 2023 and produced a report for the defendant. That report was not prepared as expert evidence for the proceedings. By 2025, however, he was acting as the defendant’s expert witness.

That change of role became important.

The judge noted that the later expert report did not refer to the earlier inspection or the report produced at the time, despite the expert accepting in oral evidence that the earlier inspection had given him a better view of the joists.

The court was also critical of the extent to which he had engaged with the available evidence and of the opportunities available to him to inspect the property more fully.

The most significant criticism was the judge’s observation that his approach reflected:

“some conflation of his role as a contractor engaged in negotiations with the Claimant and his duties as an expert witness”

There was no suggestion that the expert had deliberately acted partially. The concern was rather that aspects of his earlier role appeared to have carried over into the way he approached his later expert evidence.

That is a useful warning for any professional who changes role during the life of a dispute.

Previous involvement does not automatically prevent someone from later acting as an expert witness. In some cases, that earlier involvement may mean they have valuable knowledge of the subject matter.

But the nature of the role changes.

A contractor, consultant or adviser may previously have been helping a client solve a problem, negotiate a position or achieve a particular commercial outcome. An expert witness has a different duty.

Under CPR 35.3, an expert’s duty is to help the court on matters within their expertise. That duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom they have received instructions or by whom they are paid.

That is not simply a formal statement to be repeated in the declaration at the end of a report. It has practical consequences for the way an expert approaches the evidence.

Transparency about previous involvement

Where an expert has already inspected the subject matter, produced reports, advised a party, taken part in negotiations or expressed views before being instructed as an expert witness, that history may be material to the opinion now being given.

The point is not that every earlier conversation or document must automatically be reproduced. It is that relevant prior involvement should not be left invisible if it bears on the expert’s present reasoning.

That is particularly important because CPR 35.10 requires an expert report to state the substance of all material instructions, whether written or oral, on the basis of which the report was written. Practice Direction 35 also requires the expert to make clear which facts are within their own knowledge and which have been provided by others.

In this case, the earlier involvement was not peripheral. The expert had inspected the joists at a time when they were more fully exposed and had produced an earlier report. He later accepted that the earlier inspection had given him a better view of the joists, yet neither the inspection nor the earlier report appeared in his expert report.

That is a useful illustration of why disclosure matters.

If earlier involvement has informed what the expert knows, assumes or concludes, the court should be able to see that route clearly. If it only emerges later, particularly in cross-examination, the omission can create an avoidable question about the completeness and transparency of the expert’s reasoning.

For an expert changing role, a sensible question at the outset is:

What have I already done, seen, said or concluded in this matter, and what of that is material to the opinion I am now giving?

If someone changes role during the life of a dispute, earlier assumptions may need to be revisited. Previous opinions should not simply be carried forward without being tested against the evidence now available. Earlier inspections, reports and involvement may themselves be relevant and should be dealt with openly where necessary.

The wider framework of the Civil Procedure Rules matters as well.

The overriding objective in CPR 1.1 is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Expert evidence forms part of that process. It is therefore not enough for an expert merely to possess relevant expertise. The evidence has to assist the court in a way which is independent, properly reasoned and proportionate to the issues in dispute.

That is why a change in role can be important.

A professional may quite properly have spent months or years advising a client, negotiating with another party or working towards a particular practical outcome. Those activities may require judgement, persuasion and a close identification with the client’s interests.

The expert witness role is different.

Once instructed as an expert, the professional must be able to step back from that earlier involvement and approach the evidence independently. That may mean reconsidering previous views, acknowledging matters which do not support the client’s position and making clear where earlier involvement has informed the present opinion.

• The Academy’s guidance on party-appointed experts explains the overriding duty owed by an expert to the court.
• The Academy’s Code of Practice for Experts places independence, impartiality, objectivity and integrity at the heart of expert practice.
• The Academy’s Model Form of Expert Report is also relevant where an expert has had previous involvement, because the report should make clear the factual basis of the opinions expressed and the material relied upon.

The lesson from MSA Properties is not that previous involvement disqualifies an expert. It is that a professional who moves from contractor, adviser or negotiator to expert witness must make that transition consciously and transparently. The court may look closely at whether the expert has genuinely separated the new role from the old one, and whether the report gives a clear account of any earlier involvement which bears on the opinion now being expressed.

For experts, that is a useful point to consider before accepting instructions in a matter in which they have already been involved.

See the judgment here on BAILII.

Expert witnesses play a key role in the justice system and it has always been the case that expert reports and other documents referred to in court were in the public domain. But getting hold of them has not been straightforward and concerns were raised in Lady Hale’s judgment in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 a  case relating to asbestos exposure. This set out something of a mish-mash of practices and rules and the issue, together with the increasing reliance on electronic court bundles gave rise to the work of  Transparency and Open Justice Board.

The resulting Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot, postponed from earlier this year, will now go live on 1^st January 2026, initially for year. Details of the pilot are set out in Practice Direction 51ZH but the key points that experts should take note of are as follows;

• Pilot covers Commercial Court and London Circuit Commercial Court of the King’s Bench Division and  the Financial List (Commercial Court and Chancery Division) only.
• It affects any documents that have already been filed with the court and which are then relied on in court from January 2026, not just new documents.
• Affected documents include expert reports and annexes and appendices to expert reports;
• Expert reports these must be filed within 14 days of being relied on (submissions, skeletons within 2 days).

Filing of reports will be the norm, exceptions require a Filing Modification Order or FMO to be applied for.

In summary while expert reports were always theoretically available to non-parties access should become a great deal easier, see the Academy website for more detailed guidance.

Only time will tell whether the press or public will have an appetite for reading sometimes complex and lengthy reports on forensic accounting, construction or IT but experts should make sure, as always, that their opinions are properly supported, reasoned and consistent with their previous opinions – remembering that any report that has been filed will potentially become available through the pilot if used in hearing!

The Academy responded to the consultation for the pilot and continues to engage with the judiciary and legal profession on this and other issues to ensure that expert views are taken into account and that members have access to the best possible advice and guidance.

Our Judicial Committee publishes the authoritative guidance for experts so you can be sure that you are adopting best practice. This includes for example the Model Form of Expert’s Report and Guidance Notes on Meetings of Experts, Contingency Fees & Remote Evidence.

We also provide practical advice and guidance on topics such as GDPR, Joint Statements, privilege and so on which is available at no charge to members in the Academy’s Knowledge Hub.

Members can also call our Technical Helpline for help and advice on ethical and practical issues from dealing with instructions to getting paid.

The Pilot for Access to Public Domain Documents (governed by Practice Direction 51ZH) was originally intended to commence in October 2025 but will now go live from 1^st January 2026.

The pilot will apply to the Commercial Court (including the London Circuit Commercial Court) and the Financial List (except where a party is unrepresented and had not used the Court’s CE File electronic filing system previously). It is intended that there will be a review after 6 months although the pilot is not scheduled to finish until 31^st December 2027.

If the pilot is successful, it will then be extended to other courts – most likely the Business and Property courts first.

The Pilot identifies certain documents as Public Domain Documents. It is intended to only capture documents which as a matter of law enter the public domain when a hearing takes place in public without imposing an undue burden on the parties or the Court. The Pilot will see a change from the current position, whereby an application is required to access the documents, to the default being the provision of the documents.

The main categories of documents covered by the Pilot are:

• Written submissions – skeleton argument and written and opening closing submissions, as well as all other submissions provided to the judge during the course of the hearing
• Witness statements/affidavits
• Expert reports (including annexes and exhibits)

How does it work?
The documents will be accessed via CE-File which is the court’s existing system with the parties filing the documents themselves in the appropriate category.

There will be a default filing period for documents. This will be from the day they enter the public domain by being referred to in a court hearing and ending at 16:00 14 days later unless otherwise ordered or agreed by the parties.

As filing will be the default position any party who wishes to limit or not file will need to seek an order to that effect before the filing deadline (Filing Modification Orders – FMOs).

The PD contains a provision for an order to be made compelling parties to make the filing and could, if not complied with, result in appropriate sanctions such as contempt of court.

It will be the responsibility of the lawyers to upload the documents. Further information can be found in the accompanying Guidance Note.

Things to Note:
The most important thing is to be aware that if you are acting in a case which comes under the Pilot then your report will become a Public Domain Document once your evidence is given in open court. If the hearing is private, then the report will not become a Public Domain Document.

All Experts should read and familiarise themselves with both the Practice Direction and the Guidance.

Although the current scope of the Pilot is limited it is likely that in the future this will apply across the board in the civil courts and your reports will automatically become Public Domain Documents.

You should:

• Check with the instructing party whether the case will be dealt with under the pilot.
• Discuss with the instructing party when your report will be first used or referred to. It is likely that this will be when you give evidence in chief and this will be when it becomes publicly available.
• Discuss with your instructing party about how any sensitive information might be used in your report and how they would like it dealt with.
• Do not include your own personal information, other than that which is required by the procedural rules.  For example, consider not including email or telephone numbers. Remember to use your business address and not your personal one. It maybe that you consider having a separate registered business address if you work from home.
• Consider your personal media profile and the information that is publicly available – especially if it is likely that your report could led to harassment or social media comments.

The Committee intends to review the Pilot after 6 months of operation. We would appreciate any details of your experiences with the Pilot to inform our engagement with the Committee’s review.

Many experts are members of the professional bodies or associations relevant to their specialist field and will benefit from news, information, networking events and so on, as well as the ability to put the relevant letters after their name. Of course these are all helpful aspects of professional membership but from the point of view of the public and the courts a more important, possibly the most important, service a professional body provides  is to ensure that members provide professional and high quality services.

 

The key role of a professional body’s enforcement process in the justice system is illustrated by Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi. This case had, as the judge commented a fairly remarkable history  but in very brief summary the Defendant lost at a liability hearing and was ordered to purchase shares in a company at a price “to be determined”. There followed a series of applications, appeals and failures by the Defendant to pay costs or provide security for costs, all of which culminated in them being barred from taking any further part in the proceedings.

 

The quantum hearing duly took place with the judge relying heavily on a quantum report provided by a member of the ICAEW, resulting in a  valuation for the shares of £3.3 million. So not a good result for the (de-barred) Defendant. What follows is best explained by quoting the judge;

 

“On 10 December 2024 Mr Lorimer-Wing applied for permission to appeal the debarment order. This is the appeal. The application for permission to appeal was rejected on the papers by Leech J on 27 March 2025. Mr Lorimer-Wing applied to renew his application, and that came before Leech J on 20 June 2025. Just before that application was heard, the court received letters from Mr Ashing, the expert, and from a Mr Wiggins, a representative of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (“ICAEW”). The effect of those letters was that Mr Ashing accepted that his expert’s report which ICC Judge Agnello had relied on was flawed, and in particular he accepted that the correct value of the company at the material time was likely to be substantially less than set out in his opinion. Mr Wiggins explained that the ICAEW was involved because of a complaint made to it by Mr Lorimer-Wing against Mr Ashing. The investigation which was conducted by the ICAEW included instructing their own independent valuation, and that valuation expert was firmly of the view that the company had no value at the relevant valuation date. “

 

In other words  there was no basis for the award that had been made and the order for costs itself might also be unsafe. While couched in careful language the judge was clearly unhappy with the procedural mess that resulted, commenting that “These proceedings need to be brought to a conclusion by getting to the bottom of what happened in the Agnello proceedings, and I do not consider putting any more procedural impediments to a proper resolution on the merits of those issues is desirable. “ Accordingly, the Defendant was no longer de-barred would be allowed to bring in new evidence and amend their grounds of appeal.

 

While the next chapter in this particular saga may yet play out in court the key message is that professional bodies do matter and their complaints processes have teeth. If a party believes an expert has not acted appropriately for whatever reason there are avenues that can and should be used to challenge them.

 

Members of the Academy of Experts will be aware that while bodies such as ICAEW are often the first port of call for complaints, we also have a complaints process. The Academy’s code of conduct for experts  was approved by the Master of the Rolls and the disciplinary procedure is conducted, on the few occasions its required, by an independent committee led by a legal practitioner and comprising experienced experts and at least one dispute resolver. While most experts will never need to engage in the process it is an essential service to both the public and the courts. If you need advice on engaging an expert or identifying the appropriate body to contact for advice then please get in touch.

The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee have issued a new consolidated set of the Criminal Procedure Rules which came into force on 6^th October 2025.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 replaces the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 and incorporates the 9 sets of amendments made since the 2020 rules were published. The Committee has also published a guide to the new Rules. criminal-procedure-rules-2025.pdf

In addition, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee have just published the. Fourth Amendment to the Criminal Practice Directions 2023 – November 2025 – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. The changes, some of which will impact on experts in Chapter 7, come into force on 18^th November 2025.

The amendments:

1. require the disclosure in an expert report of any authoritative advice or warning relevant to the content of the report;
2. require the disclosure in an expert report of any past adverse finding or disciplinary proceeding, even if since resolved; and
3. ensure the compatibility of the declarations of compliance required by (i) the Criminal Practice Directions, and (ii) the Forensic Science Regulator’s statutory code of practice.

Updated Expert Declaration
In addition to the changes outlined above there are also changes that need to be made to the Expert’s Declaration, full details are on the Academy website.

 

Don’t forget to update any templates you have that are effected by the changes and to satisfy yourself that any report issued after 18^th November 2025 complies with the new requirements.

Most people will be aware by now that a pilot scheme for “access to public domain documents” in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Court and the Financial List is due to start in October.  Guidance and details of the pilot aren’t out yet but it’s expected that at least some expert reports will become publicly available.

In the meantime experts who are concerned about the possibility should start to think about making sure the opinions they provide are consistent, not just within a given report but within all their reports. Of course that’s not really a new requirement and from time to time an expert will be challenged to explain why their opinion today seems to differ from a previous opinion.

That’s exactly what happened in Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare a trademark dispute about the design of an ‘on-body’ glucose monitor. The Defendant’s market research expert had examined surveys conducted by the Claimant ‘s expert who unfortunately was unable to testify because of ill-health.  This placed more emphasis than normal on her evidence which was critical of the approach used in the surveys that supported the claim.

She was also challenged to explain why her opinions appear to vary in this case compared to her views on what the claimant’s counsel viewed as an equivalent survey in Tesco v Lidl. Fortunately she appears to not only have held entirely consistent views but was well-prepared enough to, as the judge explained “emphatically and, in my view, convincingly, rejected the suggestion that there was no material difference between the Traditional Survey and the Lidl survey.”

What this case does emphasis is firstly the need  to be objective and consistent  between cases and in the light of the impending Open Justice pilot experts should add a new question to their internal checklist. Not only should they ask ‘what would I say if were on the other side’ but ‘is this the same opinion that I gave last time and if not, why not?’

Secondly if you have appeared in court and your evidence has been discussed (or from this year made public in full)  you would be well advised to read up on any relevant cases before giving evidence!

The Academy’s Knowledge Hub. includes practical advice and guidance for experts who want to check their practe, including for example the Model Form of Expert’s Report and Guidance Notes on Meetings of Experts, Contingency Fees & Remote Evidence. As a member you can also call our Technical Helpline for help and advice on ethical and practical issues from dealing with instructions to getting paid.

 

Being instructed as an expert witness can be an interesting and fulfilling aspect of professional life, but it’s not without its challenges. One of the most common (and under-discussed) issues experts face is how to manage their instructing solicitors.

It’s easy to assume that once you’re engaged, expectations are fixed and your role is simply to deliver. But in reality, managing your instructing solicitor is a key part of ensuring that what you deliver is useful, compliant, and capable of standing up in court.

Academy Council Member Helen Gregory of Opus Forensic Accounting has helpfully provided her five top tips for how expert witnesses can work most effectively with their instructing solicitors.

1. Be realistic about deadlines — and say no if needed

There’s a temptation to take on every instruction that comes your way, particularly if you’re self-employed and don’t know where the next one is coming from. But accepting unrealistic deadlines can cause problems for all involved. Rushed reports are more likely to contain errors, lack clarity, or fail to meet procedural requirements. And in the worst-case scenario, they can be thrown out by the court entirely.

It’s better to decline a job than to submit something half-baked. Be clear at the outset about what’s feasible and remember to factor in time not just for writing the report, but for reviewing documents, requesting further information, meetings with the solicitor and client, responding to queries, and navigating any surprises.

2. Build in contingency: Something will crop up

In theory, you receive a neat, complete bundle of documents and a clear brief. In practice, things are rarely that tidy. Documents arrive late or in multiple batches, some are missing or out of order, and the questions you need to address will take time to answer.

You need to allow for contingency: time to request clarifications, review additional information, and think critically about what you’re being asked to do. The more flexibility you build in, the more likely you are to produce a report that is robust, complete, and helpful to the court.

3. Understand the limits of your visibility

One key challenge is that, as an expert, you often operate in isolation from the wider case. You may see only a snapshot of the full picture. It’s important to remain focused on your instructed area and resist the temptation to speculate beyond it.

At the same time, remember that lack of context doesn’t remove your duty of care. If documents appear incomplete, if your opinion feels influenced, or if something doesn’t sit right, you must raise it. You are reporting to the court, not acting as an advocate for either party.

4. Deliver bad news where it’s warranted

It’s not always easy to say your client doesn’t have a case. But as an expert witness, you have a duty to give your honest, professional opinion, even if that opinion isn’t what the instructing solicitor wants to hear.

Be aware that some may (consciously or otherwise) attempt to steer your opinion. Stay alert to missing evidence, biased questions, or subtle attempts to frame a narrative. Your integrity and credibility depend on your ability to remain independent and evidence-based.

5. Know the rules and review your report thoroughly

Expert reports must comply with the relevant Civil, Criminal or Family Procedure Rules. That includes formatting, content, and declarations. A technical report that omits the correct statement of truth or includes the wrong version risks being ruled inadmissible.

It’s also essential to re-read what you’ve written. That may sound obvious, but when deadlines loom and multiple drafts are flying around, it’s easy to miss a critical detail. The best option is to ask someone else unconnected to the case to read and cast it, but that may not always be possible so do make time to review your own work with a clear head.  You may be cross-examined on your report, so make sure you’re comfortable defending it.

Final thoughts

Whatever your discipline, acting as an expert means more than just knowing your subject. It requires planning, time management, self-awareness, and the confidence to push back when needed.

Clear communication with instructing solicitors, realistic boundaries, and careful preparation are vital. If in doubt, The Academy of Experts offers training, guidance and support to help navigate the more complex aspects of expert witness work.

Helen is a Partner at Opus Forensic Accounting, part of the Opus Business Advisory Group, and brings over 25 years’ experience in civil and criminal investigations, commercial disputes, and matrimonial matters. A trusted expert witness and active figure in the sector, including roles with The Academy of Experts and the South West Fraud Forum, she recently joined Opus, a national advisory firm with 14 offices, 35 Partners, and specialist divisions spanning restructuring, strategic advisory, forensic accounting, and equity.

In March 2025 the Family Procedure Rule Committee initiated a consultation on proposed changes to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and the associated Practice Directions (PD) for experts in family law children proceedings. These changes involve a requirement for an expert witness to be a ‘regulated expert’ which is defined in FPR 25.2

The Academy sought input from members with experience in the relevant areas. Our response notes that the FPC are responding to a range of problems involving unscientific evidence being put forward in family cases, where theories are sometimes advanced without appropriate supporting evidence. In summary we consider the proposed amendments to be adequate, limited as they are to Family Law Children proceedings. We would, however, have preferred the FPR Committee to have addressed the problem of unscientific evidence directly.

The reasoning and recommendations we made are set out in full in our response to the consultation. We are grateful to everyone who contributed.

In February The Transparency and Open Justice Board published proposed key objectives to guide the Board’s work. These related to timely and effective access to information about cases, timely and effective access to core documents and effective access to hearings. The Board invited comments on the key objectives and The Academy has responded as follows;

Do you agree that these are the correct objectives? 

We support the principles of open justice and consider that objectives set out the goal of open justice.

Do you think there is something that has been missed from the objectives? If yes, what else do you think should be included?

We understand that the Key Objectives are the first stage of planned reform. They will be used, going forward, to guide the work undertaken by the Board and to identify areas where change might be made and to measure the outcomes of change. It is unclear how such outcomes will be measured and recorded. There appears to be no formal impact assessment which might have usefully addressed some of the positive and negative concerns.

We would suggest that the specifics of the objectives will need to be clarified prior to implementation. For example, what precisely is meant by timeliness? There is a tension between timeliness from an open justice point of view and the risks of cases being played out in public at the same time as in court.

There is some concern within the Expert Witness Community as to the possible negative impact and the potential for reducing the pool of quality expert witnesses available and that in some cases there could be safety concerns relating to both the experts and the use of their reports.

We note that it is suggested that the Courts and Tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland would also be encouraged to adopt the objectives with appropriate modifications. This would seem to be a sensible approach as consistency across jurisdictions is to be welcomed. It will also underline the importance of the key objectives particularly in making justice more accessible.

Although it is not directly answering the question we believe it is important to note that there are some concerns with regard to “open reporting” and “open documents”. It is, in our view, essential that open reporting should not in any way compromise those involved in the justice process.

The need for open justice needs to be balanced against the risks of witnesses and experts being discouraged from giving evidence by the knowledge that their statements will be published. This could open them up to professional and personal criticism that goes well beyond the current risk of judicial criticism.

We are concerned that in some cases it may limit the number of those giving evidence particularly in some areas such as paediatric medicine where the pool of willing experts is already diminishing.

Open documents. We understand the reasoning behind making documents available. However, as is stated in the explanatory notes there are important issues relating to the timing at which documents should be made available. It is important in the light of possible changes to CPR 5.4 that parties are not discouraged from litigating their disputes in England & Wales because of real or perceived concerns about exposing commercially or personally sensitive information.

It is, of course, a difficult balancing act to ensure that transparency and openness do not come with a higher burden in relation to costs. We would welcome further consultation with regard to the timings and procedures for accessing documents as this is fundamental in meeting the key objectives.