Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 32


     
     1        witnesses.
     2
     3        The Defendants make the submission with particular
     4        reference to the Plaintiffs' attitude to our expert
     5        witnesses.  Questions of expertise should have been
     6        explored with the witness.  He or she may well have had
     7        vitally important information to give the court on his or
     8        her expertise or qualifications.  The Plaintiffs' course
     9        has deprived the court of any opportunity to hear such
    10        additional evidence, and yet the Plaintiffs now invite the
    11        court to treat such witnesses as lacking in expertise.
    12
    13        We say that it is clear that such a course amounts to an
    14        abuse of the process of the court.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  Can I hand up a section of...  I think it is
    17        Hodgkinson on Expert Law and Procedure, I cannot remember
    18        the exact name of the book; probably Mr. Rampton
    19        remembers.  But (handed) I have got the book at home.
    20
    21   MS. STEEL:   The important point of that part of it is this.
    22        Page 112.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:  It is a very recent edition, I think it is 1994,
    25        and it is published by Sweet and Maxwell.  I have it at
    26        home but I did not bring it.  The whole book is just about
    27        experts' evidence and procedure.
    28
    29   MS. STEEL:  The important part of this is on page 112.  I mean,
    30        we might want to refer to other parts later but in respect
    31        of this argument that I just put, under section E,
    32        cross-examination, No. 1, disputed evidence must be
    33        challenged, and it says here "just as a party must in
    34        cross-examination challenge evidence of fact given in chief
    35        by a lay witness which is not accepted", which you may
    36        remember was what we were arguing the other day.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not accept that.
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:   Well, I will read it anyway because this is our
    41        argument.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It depends who comes first.
    44
    45   MS. STEEL:   Well, we would say that it is clear that any
    46        substantial disagreement must be put to the witness, they
    47        must be challenged.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I just cannot accept that.  This case, long
    50        as it has been, would have taken half as long again.
    51
    52   MS. STEEL:   Well...
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not know what the authority for that is,
    55        and I do not know what the author's experience of
    56        litigation is.
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:  We want to put this as our argument.  If I just
    59        finish.  Just as a party must in cross-examination
    60        challenge evidence of fact given in chief by a lay witness

Prev Next Index