Two things that caught my attention in the last week, from vastly differing aspects of my interests, have a possible simple connection.

One was a conversation (as a podcast and a you tube video) between comedians Rob Brydon and Milton Jones. The other was the judgement in Coldunell Ltd & Hotel Management International Ltd [2022] EWHC 1290 (TCC).

What caught my attention was how Milton Jones described “reverse engineering” a one line joke starting with a punch-line then working backwards to the introduction and lead up lines.

This got me thinking especially after reading the comments of the Judge in Coldnell regarding the expert for the defence, who despite having 42 years experience and regularly acting in adjudications and as an expert witness, had not given expert evidence in court.

The judge made a number of observations regarding the report and oral evidence provided by this expert, as arguing the Defendant’s case, that is his instructing party, and using the phrase “our case”. There were also comments regarding the expert’s credibility such as indicating that a scaffolding tower would be appropriate for some work on a rotunda which overhung the river adjoining the property and this was described by the judge as “obvious nonsense”. 

He had not carried out an inspection, in contrast to the opposing expert, and even had not taken note of photographs taken or other reports that was described as the judge as a “slapdash approach”.

In the judge’s conclusion, it was decided that this expert was acting as an advocate for “his client” and they could not place any reliance on his evidence.

Why then do I compare this expert’s approach with that of the comedians? 

Well this expert, despite his length of experience, had never been in a witness box where his evidence was tested and possibly have not conceived that this may occur to him at some point.

When starting out to look at a case as an expert witness one should be acutely aware that the outcome might be a trial and the need to defend any opinions raised by supporting factual evidence. 

This should mean that any opinion given should be based on evidence, and that evidence needs to be collected and reviewed both in practice and as part of the report in enough detail for someone without the knowledge or expertise of the expert to work out how the conclusions were reached.