Society's News

Corporate Members 2022

3PB Albion Chambers Ashfords Barcan + Kirby Beale & Co Bevan Brittan BLM Burges Salmon Clarke Willmott CMS CMNO DAC Beachcroft The Family Law Practice Foot Anstey (including Enable Law) Freeths Fussell Wright GL Law Guildhall Chambers Irwin Mitchell Solicitors Lyons Davidson Marc White & Co Meade King Osborne Clarke Paragon Costs Solutions Queen Square Chambers Royds Withy King Simmons … more

BLS features in Bristol Post oldest thriving companies in Bristol

Excerpt from the article: How Bristol’s oldest companies are still thriving after more than 100 years in business They include the city’s last-surviving chocolate maker a wine merchant and a tannery. Why do some companies struggle to survive beyond a year while others flourish for hundreds? Although more than 90 per cent of small companies in Britain will survive one … more

BLS Annual Awards Dinner 3rd November 2022

Check out our digital Awards Brochure with a welcome from our C0-Presidents, full details of the award categories and links to our wonderful supporters who make this event possible. We look forward to celebrating the best of the local profession with you on 3rd November! BLS Awards 2022 Digital Brochure Nomination Brochure 2022 Nomination Online Submissions Booking Form 2022

Expert evidence by the back door – Milsted Langdon review a recent Court of Appeal Hearing considering whether or not the Court’s permission is required to adduce expert evidence







Expert evidence by the back door

A recent Court of Appeal Hearing has considered whether or not the Court’s permission is required to adduce expert evidence.

The issue is particularly relevant in the context of divorce proceedings in which it is becoming increasingly common for accountancy valuation reports to be appended to a Form E as part of the voluntary disclosure, without any application having been made to admit expert accountancy evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that:

  1. the Court’s permission was required if the evidence was from a person “instructed to prepare expert evidence for the purpose of proceedings” but
  2. if the evidence was not from a person “instructed to prepare expert evidence for the purpose of proceedings”, the opinion of a properly qualified expert was prima facie admissible, because of the application the Civil Evidence Acts of 1972 (s3) and 1995 (s1(1)).

This suggests that an accountancy valuation report that has, for example, been prepared for the purposes of implementing a share scheme, for example, could be deemed to be admissible and could be a way of adducing expert evidence “by the back door”.  That said, the mere fact that the Court might be willing to consider the evidence would not necessarily meant that it would give it as much weight as evidence adduced by an expert instructed pursuant to the proceedings.