The High Court has overturned a £50,000 costs order against an expert witness who had been accused of disregarding his duty to the court.

Overturning the order made against dentist Dr Chris Mercier, Mr Justice Sweeting said there was ‘nothing illogical or partisan’ about the evidence and conclusions provided in a clinical negligence matter.

In a widely-reported case from November 2021, Recorder Abigail Hudson, sitting in Liverpool County Court, had said Mercier was not qualified to comment on the case at hand and that his input had been ‘grossly unhelpful and wholly unreliable’. He was ordered to pay the sum of £50,543 by way of a third party costs order.

Sweeting said the recorder had been wrong to conclude that the expert had stepped outside the boundary of his expertise in giving an opinion about a breach of duty and causation on a tooth extraction. Mercier, it was concluded, was qualified to give an opinion on the issue at hand and this opinion went directly to causation.

Sweeting further stated that the recorder’s views in her judgment were expressed ‘somewhat trenchantly’, adding: ‘There may well have been grounds to criticise Mr Mercier’s performance as an expert witness and to attack his conclusions, but this was not an exceptional case and did not involve a flagrant or reckless disregard of an expert’s duty to the court.’

Permission to appeal the first judgment was granted by Mr Justice Choudhury who pointed out that some of the language used was ‘regrettable’ and ‘unduly harsh’.

Dental Protection, a trading name of The Medical Protection Society, had represented Mercier in his appeal after considering that the judgment had been wrong in fact and in law.

Speaking after the appeal ruling, Dr Raj Rattan, dental director at Dental Protection, said: ‘Expert witness work is a noble and rewarding duty and there is a growing need for a larger and more diverse dental expert witness pool. It is therefore disappointing to see an expert, who is performing the role to the best of his ability, be unfairly criticised and in such a public way.

‘Supporting the appeal was important in order put the record straight and restore the reputation of our member, as well as to prevent him from having to pay a significant amount of money in costs.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.