A critical review of the effective use of expert witnesses in construction disputes
dc.contributor.author | Charlson, Jennifer | |
dc.contributor.author | Smalley, James | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-08-11T14:36:33Z | en |
dc.date.available | 2015-08-11T14:36:33Z | en |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Const. L.J. 2014, 30(5), 268-285 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0267-2359 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2436/565876 | |
dc.description.abstract | Discusses the role and duties of expert witnesses in construction law disputes, and considers the issues of concern that have been raised about the quality of their evidence. Presents the findings of research exploring the views of legal and construction industry professionals on: (1) the level of control that clients have over expert witnesses; (2) experts' standards of objectivity; (3) their qualifications and training; (4) the future use of tribunal experts; (5) the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in Jones v Kaney removing experts' immunity; and (6) the cost of engaging experts. | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Sweet & Maxwell | |
dc.subject | Construction disputes | |
dc.subject | Expert evidence | |
dc.subject | Expert witnesses | |
dc.subject | Immunity from suit | |
dc.subject | Professional negligence | |
dc.title | A critical review of the effective use of expert witnesses in construction disputes | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.identifier.journal | Construction Law Journal | |
html.description.abstract | Discusses the role and duties of expert witnesses in construction law disputes, and considers the issues of concern that have been raised about the quality of their evidence. Presents the findings of research exploring the views of legal and construction industry professionals on: (1) the level of control that clients have over expert witnesses; (2) experts' standards of objectivity; (3) their qualifications and training; (4) the future use of tribunal experts; (5) the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in Jones v Kaney removing experts' immunity; and (6) the cost of engaging experts. |