Expert Witnesses: When Integrity Is Attacked

In every personal injury claim, the evidence of an independent, unbiased expert witness is crucial to the outcome of the case. The specialist injury lawyers at ParrisWhittaker in the Bahamas and the surrounding region are diligent to select the best expert witness for each individual personal injury client.

However, there are times when the other side attempts to undermine an expert’s integrity and suggest they are biased and their evidence should not be relied upon. We vigorously defend unfounded suggestions of bias and are proud of our track record in appointing expert witnesses.

A recent ruling from the UK’s High Court following allegations of bias is highly reassuring for injury clients and lawyers alike. The decision has persuasive effect on the courts in the Bahamas.

Objective evidence

The overarching duty of an expert witness is to be objective, independent and unbiased. The Bahamas Supreme Court Rules state:

“It is the duty of an expert witness to help the Court impartially on the matters relevant to his or her expertise. (2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person by whom he is instructed or paid.” (Similar rules apply in Jamaica.)

What happened in this case?

The claimant brought a clinical negligence compensation case against two urogynaecologists after undergoing surgery for urinary stress incontinence and a posterior prolapse repair. She did not claim that the surgery itself was negligently performed, rather than the defendant doctors breached their duty in related matters, such as failing to offer her a different, less invasive form of treatment; and that a procedure she underwent was not clinically justified.

Her claim against the second defendant succeeded and she was awarded almost £195,890 (the claim against the other defendant failed).

Alleged bias

All the parties called expert professional witnesses, two of which were cross-examined to the extent that their integrity as independent witnesses was put under attack. This was because they had both attended and shared a platform speaking at a seminar for urogynaecologists (this had been preplanned).

The nature of the cross-examination implied that the two experts had “some personal, professional and/or financial interest in the outcome of the trial, and/or had a financial interest in the supply of vaginal mesh products”.

However, the judge noted that each expert was well-qualified and experienced in their specialism. And while he said it would have been “preferable” for them to have volunteered the information about attending the conference in the interests of transparency, it was “entirely artificial to think… [it] would have any effect or impact on their evidence”.

He was satisfied that both the experts approached their task of giving evidence in accordance with the duties owed by an expert to the court.

When we instruct expert witnesses, we ensure they are fully aware of their legal duties and understand what is expected of them. We enjoy a good relationship with experts based on trust. It means if anything arises during the duration of their role as an expert on behalf of our clients that could undermine their integrity, they are always confident in discussing issues with us.

How can we help?

Our specialist personal injury and clinical lawyers are highly experienced and we select and instruct expert witnesses who are specialists in their field of practice.

For expert advice on making a compensation claim, contact the personal injury team at ParrisWhittaker on +1.242.352.6112.

1 Biggadike v El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688