ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

But should judges criticise experts in the way that Justice Wilcox did witness Tony Caletka? A number of expert witnesses reckon not.

Among them is another expert who has been criticised by Justice Wilcox, Keith Pickavance. He runs Pickavance Consulting, which was recently bought by Hill International. Pickavance says: "It doesn't make any sense for the judge to attack an expert. Most experts I come across have a high level of integrity and are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. The claimant either proves its case or it doesn't."

He added that there has been a cultural shift in the courts: "In the 1970s experts were treated with respect, if not deference, by both counsel and judges alike. Aggressive cross-examination was almost unheard of. Now it is par for the course and the courts are encouraged to criticise expert evidence. I don't think this is a useful trend."

Mace director Gary France disagrees. He also acted as an expert witness on the Great Eastern case, but won complements from Judge Wilcox in the judgement. Asked if judges should criticise expert witnesses, he says: "I think it's absolutely right. I don't see that anybody else can uphold part 35 of the CPR (civil procedure rules) on how expert witnesses should act. If the expert isn't following the CPR it's the judge's job to pull them up. If the expert is doing a good, professional job there should be no reason for the judge to criticise them."

It doesn’t make any sense for the judge to attack an expert

Keith Pickavance, Pickavance Consulting

John Redmond, head of construction at solicitor Osborne Clarke in Bristol, appoints expert witnesses on his cases. He says they are in a difficult position: "The expert is supposed to be entirely impartial but he is being paid by party A, so everyone has the suspicion he's not independent." A single court-appointed expert cannot solve the problem, he says, as this route tends to result in each party simply appointing their own experts in an attempt to discredit the court's expert. But Redmond argues judges are right to criticise experts or even charge them with professional misconduct if they fail to be independent or to carry out sufficient research. In such cases, the witness is misleading the court and "the judge can't rely on him at all", he says.

The owners of the Great Eastern Hotel (restaurant company Conran and US hotelier Wyndham) were claiming £17m in damages after the refurbishment of the building was delivered a year late in June 2000. Judge Wilcox ruled that Laing was responsible for the delay. However, before the Judge delivered his final verdict, Laing settled out of court in October 2005, paying the owners about £11m.