Expert evidence is often perceived as a necessary evil by many judges. The “evil” of these experts is that they tend to enhance the adversarial nature of litigation, unduly complicate proceedings, and often add unnecessary costs for the parties.
What is the role of the court in excluding or managing this evidence?
Concerns over the excessive use of experts has been identified in several jurisdictions. A 2002 study by Carol Krafka in the US found that judges are becoming more recalcitrant towards accepting expert evidence post-Daubert. The 2009 Jackson Report in the UK accepted the manner in which expert . . . [more]