Recognising expertise in English civil litigation: Standards, experience and reliability

In England and Wales the Civil Evidence Act 1972, s 3(1) provides that ‘where a person is called as a witness in any civil proceedings, his opinion on any relevant matter on which he is qualified to give expert evidence shall be admissible in evidence'. To be qualified to give expert evidence a witness must demonstrate knowledge or experience of some recognised field of expertise. The influential judgment in Barings plc v Cooper & Lybrand (2001) Lloyd's Rep. Bank. 85 states that this must be ‘a recognised expertise governed by recognised standards and rules of conduct'. On epistemological as well as doctrinal grounds, we endorse this requirement for recognised standards and/or rules as appropriate to most types of expert. It is less appropriate to witnesses whose expertise is based on experience of a particular trade or occupation. So-called ‘trade evidence' has caused particular difficulties in intellectual property cases. We argue that such evidence should be treated as expert opinion evidence, not evidence of fact or lay opinion, and should show some identifiable rigour in arriving at its conclusions, as well as conforming to the standards applicable to all expert witnesses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127251378789
Primary Topic
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Recognising expertise in English civil litigation: Standards, experience and reliability

Tony Ward, Ann Ferguson
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
article

Recognising expertise in English civil litigation: Standards, experience and reliability

Tony Ward, Ann Ferguson
article en

Abstract

In England and Wales the Civil Evidence Act 1972, s 3(1) provides that ‘where a person is called as a witness in any civil proceedings, his opinion on any relevant matter on which he is qualified to give expert evidence shall be admissible in evidence'. To be qualified to give expert evidence a witness must demonstrate knowledge or experience of some recognised field of expertise. The influential judgment in Barings plc v Cooper & Lybrand (2001) Lloyd's Rep. Bank. 85 states that this must be ‘a recognised expertise governed by recognised standards and rules of conduct'. On epistemological as well as doctrinal grounds, we endorse this requirement for recognised standards and/or rules as appropriate to most types of expert. It is less appropriate to witnesses whose expertise is based on experience of a particular trade or occupation. So-called ‘trade evidence' has caused particular difficulties in intellectual property cases. We argue that such evidence should be treated as expert opinion evidence, not evidence of fact or lay opinion, and should show some identifiable rigour in arriving at its conclusions, as well as conforming to the standards applicable to all expert witnesses.

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Northumbria University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Recognising expertise in English civil litigation: Standards, experience and reliability — Tony Ward, Ann Ferguson · The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS