The Reliability of Expert Evidence in Construction Litigation: Towards Institutional Reliability

This article examines the institutional reliability of expert evidence in construction litigation in England and Wales. Drawing on doctrinal analysis, practitioner interviews, and comparative evaluation of Australia, Singapore, and international arbitration, it argues that reliability should be understood not as an ethical virtue of individual experts but as a systemic property of evidentiary governance. Despite the procedural safeguards of Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, expert independence remains undermined by adversarial incentives, methodological inconsistency, limited judicial capacity, and weak enforcement. Comparative models demonstrate that concurrent evidence, expert accreditation, and structured judicial oversight can effectively realign procedural incentives with epistemic integrity. The article proposes four interdependent reforms—accreditation, methodological standardisation, judicial capacity-building, and feedback-based oversight—to embed reliability as a procedural norm within the Technology and Construction Court. By reframing reliability as an institutional obligation rather than a moral aspiration, the study contributes to wider debates on evidentiary governance, procedural justice, and the regulation of expertise in technologically complex adjudication.