The CPR provides under Part 35.3 that: "(1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise. (2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid." Moreover, Part 35.4 of the CPR likewise provides that: "(1) No party may call an expert or put in evidence an expert’s report without the court’s permission. (2) When a party applies for permission under this rule he must identify – (a) the field in which he wishes to rely on expert evidence, and (b) where practicable the expert in that field on whose evidence he wishes to rely. (3) If permission is granted under this rule it shall be in relation only to the expert named or the field identified under paragraph (2). (4) The court may limit the number of the expert’s fees and expenses that the party who wishes to rely on the expert may recover from any other party." Hence, it is settled that under the CPR, the experts have an overriding duty to the court and that the court has the power to restrict expert evidence. Clearly, these provisions in the CPR is geared towards the objective of satisfying Article 6 ECHR affording a party to a dispute a right to a fair trial by having his case heard before an independent and impartial tribunal that has the power to control and restrict expert evidence.
The Act, on the other hand, has several provisions ensuring that a party to an arbitration proceeding is afforded his right to a fair trial as a guaranteed in Article 6 ECHR. Section 1 provides: "1. The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly– (a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense. (b) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary for the public interest. (c) in matters governed by this Part the court should not intervene except as provided by this Part." All the provisions in the Act must be read with these words in mind. The concepts of fairness, impartiality and the avoidance of unnecessary delay or expense are not new. The importance is the emphasis given to them at the start of this overhaul of arbitration–they are the lodestone for the parties and the arbitrator when deciding appropriate procedure in the arbitration. Next is a strong statement of party control, subject to public interest safeguards. Finally, a provision that the State will not frustrate the parties’ arbitration agreement. On the contrary, it will support it by punishing a defaulting party if that becomes necessary.&nbsp.

You may also like

Publication Bans

A public bank can be issued if it is necessary

Whether Royal Prerogative Powers Are Unnecessary

There is near consensus amongst the members of Parliament and

Observation Riding Public Transportation

And whether or not they are rich or poor people