While this is not entirely news to us here at Lawgistics and our sister Litigation CIC, even we were stunned to recently read a report disclosed by a finance company, which had been procured from one of the three main national providers of expert motor engineering evidence purportedly pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35, in which it had brazenly directed the expert engineer in the following terms:
“We need the inspection to prove that this vehicle was not fit for purpose when bought and fraudulent MOT was provided to hide this” and “…need proof that we did not cause this extent of corrosion within the time period we have owned it – 13 months.”
Paragraph 2.1 of The Practice Direction to CPR Part 35 states that: “Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation” read[DE1] finance, and paragraph 2.2 goes on to state: “Experts should assist the Court by providing objective unbiased opinion on matters within their expertise and should not assume the role of an advocate” or for that matter, a “hired gun” for finance, which was clearly the intent of the finance company noted above.
Since this is an ongoing court case, the name of the finance company responsible for such affront and flagrant abuse of the rules of court and evidence, will be withheld… for now. However, be on notice, that any finance house thinking of or seeking to emulate such unconscionable conduct, risks not only judicial ire and sanction but also being named and shamed by us, and for that matter, the same goes for any expert engineer witless enough to be adversely influenced by such self-serving instructions.
On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.
What can I do?
Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?
If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.
