Factsheet 45: Expert Evidence in Employment Cases
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXPERT SUPPORT SERVICES FROM THE UK REGISTER OF EXPERT WITNESSES Factsheet 45: Expert Evidence in Employment Cases Last updated: April 2008 Employment tribunals constitute a specialist jurisdiction within the UK’s system of civil justice. Being specialist, it is easy to underestimate their importance. Yet they deal with cases brought under increasingly complex, and controversial, areas of legislation, and their workload is growing by leaps and bounds. The number of applications they receive has more than doubled in the past decade, from 44,377 in 1990 to 118,400 in 2000 and 238,546 in 2006/7 (although these figures are somewhat inflated by the fact that not all claims are accepted by the tribunal). Given current concerns about the possibility of a worldwide recession, the total seems likely to increase still further. One of the supposed advantages of tribunals is that those using them should be able to argue their case in person without the need for specialist advice or legal representation. In the report1 of his inquiry into the tribunal system published in August 2001, Sir Andrew Leggatt reaffirmed this as a major objective of the reforms he was proposing. By making the regime more user friendly he expressed the hope that the reforms would go a long way towards helping appellants understand the law and put their cases themselves. Consonant with this view, Sir Andrew recommended that public funding for representation should be made available only in exceptional circumstances, and that there should be no extension of the powers of tribunals to award costs. Whether this is an altogether realistic objective in the case of employment tribunals is to be doubted, given the arcane nature of much of the legislation with which they have to wrestle and the inherent disadvantage suffered by many appellants when faced by their better prepared former employers. In such circumstances, ex-employees may well need legal representation and the ability to call their own expert evidence if that imbalance is to be redressed. There are concerns, though, about the ways in which expert evidence is sometimes obtained for tribunal hearings, and earlier in 2001 one particular case provoked the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to issue guidance on its future use in employment cases. ‘Scandalous behaviour’ should be provided in employment cases. Where such In Wilson -v- De Keyser Ltd, the applicant alleged evidence was necessary, the arrangements for obtaining it constructive dismissal, claiming that she had a depressive should be as economical and effective as the requirements of illness brought on by work-induced stress and, in particular, fairness allowed. Pending, then, the development of more the attitude of her area manager. Her GP supported her view, formal rules, including provisions as to the costs involved, it but the employer contended that the illness resulted from set out the guidelines reproduced below. events in her private life. The guidelines At a directions hearing, the employee agreed to be seen by an 1. Before instructing an expert, a party should first explore occupational specialist appointed by the employer. The with the tribunal, at a directions hearing or in arrangements for this examination were made by an correspondence, whether, in principle, expert evidence is employment consultant acting on the employer’s behalf. In likely to be acceptable. It by no means follows that because a his letter of instruction to the specialist, the consultant gave party wishes such evidence to be admitted, it will be. the details of the employee’s private life that the employer believed to have been the cause of her illness, and asked for 2. Except where one side has already committed itself to the her GP’s findings to be examined in that light. use of its own expert (which is to be avoided in the absence of special circumstances), the joint instruction of a single When the contents of this letter were brought to the attention expert is the preferred course. of the tribunal hearing the case, it ruled that the letter of instruction contained material that was irrelevant and 3. If a joint expert is to be instructed, the terms which the abusive. It struck out the employer’s defence on the ground parties need to agree include the incidence of that expert’s that he had conducted his side of the proceedings in a fees and expenses. scandalous manner. Although there is nothing to preclude the parties agreeing that they will abide by such view as the tribunal shall later The employer appealed. In the event, the EAT set aside the indicate, the tribunal has currently no power to award costs striking out order, holding that it would still be possible to beyond the general provisions laid down in rule 12 of the have a fair trial of the issues between the parties if another Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) doctor were to be instructed to carry out the examination and Regulations 1993. the instructions given were acceptable to the employee. The order to strike out was, in short, disproportionate to the 4. If the means available to one side are such that it cannot offence, scandalous though the original letter of instruction agree to share the expert’s fees and expenses, or if had been. (irrespective of its means) a party refuses to pay or share such costs, the other party can reasonably be expected to instruct The EAT did not leave the matter there, however. It went on its own expert. However, in such a case, the weight to be to note that it had had occasion in the past to comment on the attached to that expert’s evidence (which is a matter entirely conduct of, as it put it, ‘unqualified representatives’. The for the tribunal to judge) may be increased if the terms of his EAT concluded that ‘the existence of a body of instruction have been submitted to the other side, for representatives who are untrained and not susceptible to any agreement or comment, ahead of their being finalised for professional discipline’ made it especially important that sending to the expert. some guidance should be given as to how expert evidence Expert Witness Factsheet 45 J S Publications, PO Box 505, Newmarket CB8 7TF Telephone (01638) 561590 © J S Publications 2009 EXPERT SUPPORT SERVICES FROM THE UK REGISTER OF EXPERT WITNESSES 5. If a joint expert is to be used, the tribunal may fix a period In view of the ever-increasing number of employment cases within which the parties are to seek to agree the identity of being brought each year, and – despite Sir Andrew Leggatt’s the expert and the terms of a joint letter of instruction, and the views to the contrary – the importance of expert evidence in tribunal may fix a date by which the joint expert’s report is to securing a just result in so many of them, one could wish that be made available. the guidelines had been ordered more logically. Thus it might 6. Any letter of instruction should specify, in as much detail appear from their position that clauses 6 and 7 relate to single as can be given, any particular questions the expert is to be joint experts, whereas it must be the case that they apply to invited to answer and all the more general subjects he is to be all experts, however appointed. asked addressed. Employment Tribunals Regulations 2004 In October 2004 a statutory instrument was passed that seeks 7. Such instructions should, as far as possible, avoid to regulate and control the use of expert evidence in the partisanship and tendentiousness. In so far as the expert is tribunal. The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules asked to make assumptions of fact, they should be spelt out. of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 go some way The letter should emphasise that, in preparing his evidence, towards redressing previous difficulties and uncertainties. the expert’s principal and overriding duty is to the tribunal rather than to any party. Schedule 6 to the main Regulations gives the tribunal new case management powers in relation to equal value claims. It 8. Where a joint expert is to be used, the tribunal may also aims to simplify the Rules of Procedure for equal value specify, if his identity or instructions have not been agreed claims and to speed up such claims. These rules and their between the parties by a specified date, that the matter is to application to experts may be summarised as follows. be restored to the tribunal, which may then assist the parties to settle that identity and those instructions. Rule 6 of Schedule 6 deals with the involvement of the independent expert in fact finding. It applies only to 9. The tribunal may give formal directions regarding the proceedings in relation to which the tribunal has decided to issues to which the expert is or is not to address himself, require an independent expert to prepare a report on the whether or not he is a joint expert. question. The rule provides that a tribunal or chairman may if 10. Where there is no joint expert, the tribunal should, in the he considers it appropriate at any stage of the proceedings absence of appropriate agreement between the parties, order an independent expert to assist the tribunal in specify a timetable for disclosure or exchange of experts’ establishing the facts on which the independent expert may reports and, where there are two or more experts, for rely in preparing his report. Examples of the circumstances in meetings. which the tribunal or chairman may make such an order 11. Any timetable may provide for the raising of described include: supplementary questions with the expert(s), whether there is a (a) a party not being legally represented; joint expert or not, and for the disclosure or exchange of (b) the parties are unable to reach agreement as required answers in good time before the hearing.