Field & Anor v Leeds City Council

An expert is not disqualified merely because he or she is employed by a party, including a local authority. Permission depends on relevant expertise and awareness of the primary duty owed to the court. The court must have sufficient material to assess the real issues and the proposed expert’s ability to address them, including a proper report and information about qualifications and role. Employment may affect the weight of evidence rather than its admissibility. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, parties must cooperate in identifying issues, distinguishing fact from opinion and avoiding disproportionate or ill-defined expert evidence.

Tenants brought county court proceedings against their local authority landlord concerning alleged housing disrepair. The claim included specific performance of outstanding works and damages for personal injuries. The district judge directed the authority to obtain an independent surveyor’s report and arrange an expert discussion.

His Honour Judge Taylor dismissed the authority’s appeal against those directions. The authority sought to rely on an employee, Mr Broadbent, as its expert. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether employment by a party prevented a person from giving expert evidence and what material was required to assess his suitability.

Disposition. The appeal was unanimously dismissed with costs. The authority was to use the independent expert already obtained, because the hearing was imminent and the material necessary to assess Mr Broadent’s proposed evidence had not been provided.

1. No automatic disqualification. Lord Woolf held that an employee of a party may give expert evidence if properly qualified. Lord Justice Waller agreed that there must be no assumption that an employee cannot give independent evidence. Lord Justice May added that employment may affect the weight of evidence, but creates no overriding objection to its admission. An employee may also give factual evidence.
2. Assessment of suitability. The court must have material enabling it to identify the issues and assess the witness’s ability to deal with them. A proper report, together with information about the witness’s qualifications, experience and precise role, was required. The judge should not reject an employed expert merely because of employment. If the material is insufficient, the judge may decline permission on the evidence available and leave the party to satisfy the court later.
3. Case management. Lord Justice May emphasised the parties’ obligation under Part 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective. The parties should cooperate, identify the real issues, distinguish fact from opinion and avoid blanket, ill-defined or disproportionate expert-evidence orders. The former practice under RSC Rule 36 had encouraged excessive reports.

Lord Woolf made further general observations, encouraging training for employed experts and procedures capable of producing a single expert appointed by both parties. He declined to impose general directions while an agreed protocol was being developed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [1999] EWCA Civ 3013: dismissed the authority’s appeal with costs.
• Leeds County Court — On 24 June 1999, His Honour Judge Taylor dismissed the authority’s appeal against directions requiring an independent surveyor’s report and expert discussion.