or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses an application to have the plaintiff's expert witness excluded from proceedings, where he had acted for the defendants in other proceedings, on grounds that: there had been a significant interim period between the analogous proceedings; the expert could provide his opinion without resorting to confidential information; and the witness offered an undertaking with regard to privileged information of the defendant.
Order sought excluding plaintiff’s expert witness – was a witness for defendant insurance company in ongoing proceedings and in past proceedings - similar but not identical matters – five and a half years since expert witness’ involvement in analogous ongoing proceedings - no dispute with regard to duty of confidentiality – affidavit sworn where witness noted he had no documentation regarding other proceedings and had used no confidential information in preparing his expert report - undertaking offered to not disclose any confidential information - test to be applied is whether or not the expert witness would have been unable to avoid having resort to privileged material – avoidance possible here – five year gap – burden of proof on applicant to show that the expert will misuse confidential information – burden not discharged - cannot have a contractual clause which prevents a witness acting as witness against the party – contrary to public policy – in any event, insufficient evidence to imply that term into the contract - recognised duty of witness to provide objective information to the court – no breach of independence or duty - no breach of basic procedural fairness – no breach of access to justice – no order granted – witness directed to offer undertaking.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.