In a professional negligence claim against an architect, the claimant instructs a structural engineer as an expert witness to opine on whether the architect's design met applicable building standards. The expert's report concludes that the design was deficient. During disclosure, the claimant discovers that: (1) the expert previously worked for the same firm as the claimant's solicitor five years ago; (2) the expert has been instructed by the claimant's solicitor in three other unrelated cases over the past two years; and (3) the expert's report primarily addresses the question 'Did the architect breach his duty?' rather than focusing on technical building standards. The defendant challenges the expert's independence and the scope of the report. Which of the following represents the most significant ground for challenging the expert evidence?
Practise this SQE1 Solicitors Exam Prep question free, then download the PDF, watch the video walkthrough, or unlock timed mock exams for the full web bank.
AThe expert addresses the ultimate legal issue rather than confining opinion to technical matters within their expertise.
BThe expert's previous employment at the same firm as the claimant's solicitor creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that renders all evidence inadmissible.
CThe expert's repeated instruction by the same solicitor in multiple cases establishes bias and requires the court to exclude the expert's evidence entirely.
DThe expert failed to obtain permission from the court before accepting the instruction, which is required whenever an expert has worked with the instructing party previously.
✓ Correct answer: A. The expert addresses the ultimate legal issue rather than confining opinion to technical matters within their expertise.The most significant flaw is that the expert addresses the ultimate legal issue of breach of duty, which is for the court to decide. Experts must confine their opinions to matters within their expertise and avoid usurping the court's role in determining legal questions. While the expert's prior relationship with the solicitor and repeated instructions could raise independence concerns, they do not automatically disqualify the expert if proper duties to the court are acknowledged. The report's focus on legal conclusions rather than technical building standards is the fundamental deficiency. CPR 35 and the practice direction require experts to provide opinion on technical matters, not legal conclusions. An expert who opines on breach of duty rather than technical standards fails to fulfill their proper role.
Keep practising. Use the free SQE1 Solicitors Exam Prep PDF, watch the YouTube walkthrough, or unlock all 10 web questions with timed mock exams.
Free practice here. Timed mocks when you are ready.
Study the SQE1 Solicitors Exam Prep free question explanations, download the PDF, then unlock timed mock exams on the web when you want exam-day practice.
Theory