A spate of recent decisions by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) have featured harsh criticism of expert witnesses. The landmark case of Compania Naviera SA vs Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (Ikarian Reefer) in 1993 set out clearly an expert's duties, and recent case law will hopefully remind experts what it means to act as an expert witness. The principles set out in the Ikarian Reefer decision are enshrined in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), yet it seems that experts pay scant regard to the rules governing their participation in the litigation process. The Supreme Court in Jones vs Kaney (2011) abolished a 400-year-old immunity from liability for experts. This means experts can now be sued in negligence. The court, no longer convinced that experts would become unwilling to act for fear of being sued, held that the removal of immunity "would tend to ensure a greater degree of care". Unfortunately, recent decisions suggest standards, rather than improving, have continued to slip, with a seeming lack of knowledge among experts as to what their role entails.
展开▼
机译：技术和建筑法院（TCC）最近做出的一系列决定都对专家证人提出了严厉批评。 Compania Naviera SA诉Prudential Assurance Company Ltd（Ikarian Reefer）在1993年具有里程碑意义的一案明确规定了专家的职责，最近的判例法有望提醒专家，作为专家证人意味着什么。 Ikarian Reefer决定中阐明的原则载于《民事诉讼程序规则》（CPR）第35部分，但似乎专家们很少考虑有关其参与诉讼程序的规则。琼斯诉凯尼（Jones vs Kaney）最高法院（2011）废除了400年的专家责任豁免权。这意味着专家现在可以因疏忽而被起诉。法院不再相信专家会因为害怕被起诉而不愿采取行动，因此认为取消豁免“将倾向于确保更大程度的照顾”。不幸的是，最近的决定表明标准一直在下滑，而不是在不断提高，专家们似乎缺乏关于其作用的知识。
展开▼
