13 Expert Evidence

Author(s):  
Brealey Mark ◽  
George Kyla

This chapter examines the use of expert evidence, and more specifically the role of economic experts and economic analysis, in competition-related litigation. It first provides an overview of the duties and responsibilities of experts, focusing on how expert evidence differs from factual evidence, issues addressed by expert evidence, the rules that apply to the production of expert evidence in the High Court and in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), and conflict of interest involving experts. The chapter then presents a practical guide to the use of experts in the course of competition litigation, covering the requirements of the relevant CAT Rules and Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), from instructing an expert to the submission of the formal written report, discussions between experts and joint statements after service of reports, and hearing of expert evidence at trial. Statutory provisions regarding concurrent expert evidence or ‘hot tubbing’ are also considered.

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-337
Author(s):  
Trang Phan ◽  
David Caruso

The ‘basis rule’ is, in general terms, a rule which restricts expert witnesses to giving opinion evidence in respect of which there is or will be proof, by other admissible evidence, of the facts and assumptions upon which the opinion is based. There has been no clear consensus as to whether the basis rule exists either at common law or under the Uniform Evidence Legislation, or whether the rule goes to admissibility or weight. This article examines the jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the recent High Court decision of Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar. The authors argue that the controversy surrounding the basis rule has been the result of a misunderstanding and misconstruction of the rule. They argue that the conflict may be resolved by understanding the basis rule as simply a rearticulation, in the specific context of expert evidence, of the requirement that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The weight of that expert evidence remains to be determined in accordance with ordinary principles.


Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter examines the question of proof of foreign law and particularly the onus of proving that the foreign law is different from English law. Foreign law is treated as a question of fact, but it is ‘a question of fact of a peculiar kind’. To describe foreign law as one of fact is apposite, in the sense that the applicable law must be ascertained according to the evidence of witnesses, yet there can be no doubt that what is involved is at bottom a question of law. The courts have concluded that a mistake as to foreign law is to be regarded as a mistake of fact. This chapter first explains how foreign law is proved, including the use of expert witnesses, before turning to witnesses who can prove foreign law. It also considers the role of the English courts under the Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with expert evidence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-149
Author(s):  
Aurelia Teodora Drăghici

SummaryTheme conflicts of interest is one of the major reasons for concern local government, regional and central administrative and criminal legal implications aiming to uphold the integrity and decisions objectively. Also, most obviously, conflicts of interest occur at the national level where political stakes are usually highest, one of the determining factors of this segment being the changing role of the state itself, which creates opportunities for individual gain through its transformations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-212
Author(s):  
Tommaso Valletti ◽  
Hans Zenger

AbstractOn the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the 2010 U.S. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, this article provides an overview of the state of economic analysis of unilateral effects in mergers with differentiated products. Drawing on our experience with merger enforcement in Europe, we discuss both static and dynamic competition, with a special emphasis on the calibration of competitive effects. We also discuss the role of market shares and structural presumptions in differentiated product markets.


Journalism ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 1078-1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Rafi Atal

Media studies scholarship on advertising has traditionally fallen into two camps. Cultural analysis emphasizes the signals advertisements send to consumers, focusing primarily on the role of advertising creatives. Economic analysis emphasizes advertising’s impact on media companies’ financial performance, focusing on the role of sales managers and proprietors. Both approaches minimize the role of reporters, against whose work advertisers place their messages. This article draws on interviews, as well as financial analysis, at six newsrooms to examine the impact of advertising practices on the editorial independence of reporters. Combining cultural and economic analysis, the article highlights the unique threat advertiser influence poses to critical business reporting, which takes as its subject the very firms who must choose to advertise against it. The article argues that the new forms of advertising, where branded content is presented alongside, and intended to mimic, reported content, increase the threat of advertiser capture. At four legacy outlets studied, investigative business coverage has declined as media organizations react to the changed operating environment with practices that compromise the divide between news and advertising staff. At two online startups studied, where new advertising formats have always been part of strategy, news and sales staff remain separate. Yet there is limited appetite at these outlets for conducting critical business journalism, which is not seen as key to organizational mission. The article concludes with policy recommendations to safeguard the viability of critical business journalism.


Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document