In clinical negligence cases, the strength of a claim or defence often rests on the quality of expert medical evidence. For solicitors and insurers, ensuring that reports comply fully with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is not simply a matter of formality. It is a legal and strategic necessity.
This guide explains why strict adherence to CPR is essential when commissioning or relying upon clinical negligence reports. Our focus is on three core principles: accuracy, objectivity, and the expert’s overriding duty to the court.
Understanding CPR Requirements for Expert Reports
Under CPR 35 and PD 35, an expert instructed to provide evidence in clinical negligence proceedings has a clear and binding duty: their primary obligation is to the court, not to the party who instructs them. This overriding duty ensures that expert opinion remains impartial and focused on assisting the court in reaching a just decision. Any attempt to tailor findings to the instructing party’s case risks undermining the admissibility and credibility of the report.
To comply with the rules, expert reports must meet specific requirements in both content and form. Each report should clearly outline the materials reviewed, the methodology applied, and the reasoning behind the conclusions reached. It must also include a statement of truth and a declaration of compliance with CPR 35, confirming that the expert understands and accepts their duty to the court. Transparency, clarity, and objectivity are not optional; they are mandatory features of any report that is to be relied upon in litigation.
Why CPR Compliance Matters for Solicitors and Insurers
For solicitors and insurers, overlooking CPR compliance can have serious consequences. Reports that fail to meet the requirements of Part 35 and PD 35 may be excluded from proceedings, leaving a case without critical evidence. Courts can also impose cost penalties or draw adverse inferences, undermining an otherwise strong position. Non-compliance risks not only waste expense but also cause reputational damage for both the legal team and the expert involved.
More fundamentally, compliance safeguards the integrity of the judicial process. By maintaining fairness, accuracy, and objectivity, CPR-compliant reports ensure that all parties operate on an equal footing. The court depends on impartial expertise, and compliance guarantees that evidence is presented in a transparent and reliable form.
Compliance also facilitates settlement. Pre-action protocols encourage a cards-on-the-table approach, where the early exchange of robust, CPR-compliant evidence helps parties to evaluate strengths and weaknesses objectively. This reduces unnecessary litigation and promotes timely resolution.
Practical Implications for Report Preparation
Putting CPR compliance into practice requires careful attention at every stage of report preparation. First, solicitors and insurers must instruct experts who are demonstrably qualified and independent. An expert with clear credentials and no conflict of interest is far more likely to withstand scrutiny in court.
Second, the report itself must be comprehensive. Even when a “short” or screening report is requested, the expert must still follow the rules, documenting the material reviewed, the reasoning applied, and any limitations in their analysis. A lack of detail risks non-compliance and undermines the value of the report.
Finally, transparency is essential. Experts should acknowledge areas outside their expertise, highlight gaps in the evidence, and promptly update their opinion if new information emerges. This strengthens the credibility of the report and reduces the likelihood of challenge during proceedings.
Best Practices in Report Commissioning and Review
Solicitors and insurers play a vital role in ensuring compliance by setting high standards for report commissioning and review. Best practice begins with vetting experts, checking both their qualifications and their previous experience in court. An expert unfamiliar with CPR obligations is unlikely to provide admissible evidence.
Reviewing draft reports is equally important. Solicitors should confirm that the report complies with the formal requirements of CPR 35 and PD 35, including the declaration of duty to the court and the statement of truth. Checking the clarity of reasoning and completeness of evidence cited ensures that the report will withstand scrutiny.
Finally, legal teams should advise experts on procedural obligations, including deadlines for report exchange. Delays or procedural missteps can invalidate a report or compromise its weight, even if the content is technically sound. Proactive guidance helps avoid these risks.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
The consequences of non-compliance can be severe. Courts may exclude reports entirely, leaving a party unable to rely on critical evidence. Cost orders and adverse judgment outcomes are also common where procedural requirements are ignored.
Experts themselves face additional risks. Providing non-compliant reports can damage an expert’s reputation, lead to disciplinary complaints, and in some cases jeopardise their ability to act in future proceedings.
For solicitors and insurers, the wider cost is inefficiency. Non-compliant reports cause delays, increase litigation time, and can strain professional relationships with clients, experts, and the court. What might appear to be a minor oversight in report preparation can therefore have far-reaching consequences.
CPR compliance is central to the reliability of expert medical evidence in clinical negligence cases. For solicitors and insurers, strict adherence to Part 35 and PD 35 ensures that reports are credible, timely, and focused on the court’s needs.
The key takeaway is clear: instruct qualified and independent experts, maintain rigorous oversight during report preparation, and ensure every report meets the formal and substantive requirements of CPR. By doing so, solicitors and insurers protect their clients’ interests, uphold the integrity of proceedings, and support the fair administration of justice.