Berezovsky v Hine & Ors

The court may permit expert evidence from a historian, political scientist or economist where the evidence can usefully summarise relevant material bearing on factual issues. The fact that witnesses of fact or documentary sources might also address the subject does not, by itself, prevent expert evidence. Permission may be given provisionally where admissibility depends on the content of the proposed report. The opposing party may challenge the report, in whole or in part, at trial. Expert reports should be concise, well structured and disciplined.

The claimant applied for permission to rely on expert evidence from a specialist in contemporary Russian history. The proposed topics included the privatisation of Russian state assets, business practices in Russia and the political influence allegedly available to the parties. The application raised questions about whether those topics satisfied the relevant test for expert evidence and whether the proposed report should be admitted before its final content was available.

1. The application for permission to rely on expert evidence was granted in the terms ordered by the court.

2. The court recognised that historians, political scientists and economists may properly give expert evidence even where witnesses of fact could arguably give evidence, or where documentary material exists, about the same subject matter. A qualified expert may provide a concise synthesis of relevant published material which assists the court in determining factual matters.

3. The court declined to give a definitive ruling on admissibility at that stage. Some proposed areas might not satisfy the relevant test for expert evidence, particularly in light of the way the proposed expert issues had been formulated. The permission was therefore granted without prejudice to later objections to the whole or any part of the report.

4. The opposing party could challenge the report at the beginning of the trial once its actual contents were known. If the report created difficulty for the opposing expert before then, the court would consider an application to defer service of the responsive report.

5. The court directed that the reports should be concise, succinct and well structured, and should address the relevant areas in a disciplined manner.

Not stated in the judgment.