📢REFORMING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN CYPRUS: NEW CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND ENGLISH CASE LAW GUIDANCE

In a significant development for civil procedure, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, in Stellantis Auto SAS v Autoliv AB [2024] EWCA Civ 609, reaffirmed the discretionary framework governing the appointment of Single Joint Experts (SJEs). This judgment is particularly timely for Cyprus, which, as of 1 September 2023, introduced its newly formulated Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). These reforms aim to modernise civil litigation by enhancing judicial efficiency, reducing costs, and streamlining case management — principles increasingly vital in contemporary judicial systems.

One of the key features of this modernised framework is the explicit incorporation of the SJE model — a noteworthy procedural innovation in Cypriot litigation. Under the new provisions, specifically Part 34 of Cyprus’s CPR, the court now has the authority to direct that expert evidence be given by a single, impartial expert jointly instructed by the parties or, in default of agreement, appointed by the court. This replaces the traditional model where each party would rely on its own expert, often resulting in overlapping evidence and increased costs.

The revised approach mandates that parties must first seek judicial permission before introducing expert testimony. The decision is guided by considerations of proportionality - balancing the nature of the issues, the financial value at stake, while maintaining the general principle that Experts must be objective and impartial. The use of SJEs should be particularly endorsed in lower-value and less complex claims. However, in more involved disputes, the court may adopt a more flexible approach, recognising that separate experts may be justified where issues are technically nuanced or contentious.

English case law remains pivotal role in shaping the understanding of SJEs under Cyprus’s CPR. For example, in Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1382, the Court clarified that a party’s agreement to a SJE does not irrevocably preclude them from later seeking to instruct their own expert, provided they can demonstrate reasonable grounds—such as concerns over impartiality or the completeness of the original report. The court must be satisfied that any such request is bona fide and proportionate in the context of the litigation.

Furthermore, while British Airways Plc v Spencer & Ors [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch) does not address SJEs directly, it reinforces the principle that expert evidence must be “reasonably required.” At paragraph 63, the court emphasised the need to assess both necessity and proportionality when admitting expert testimony, principles that may also underpin the court’s general preference for appointing a SJE where appropriate.

Returning to Stellantis (2024), the Court of Appeal offered important clarifications regarding the boundaries of the SJE regime.

It emphasised that the appointment of an SJE is not limited to cases where expert opinion is unlikely to be challenged. Even in fields involving advanced economic models and competition law—areas rife with methodological disagreements—a joint expert may still be appropriate and beneficial. However, the Court distinguished between general divergence of opinion and the existence of clearly defined, well-established schools of thought, stressing that the mere presence of differing views does not automatically justify multiple experts unless such differences reflect entrenched, structured divisions within the discipline.

In paragraphs 65 and 66 of the judgment, Lord Justice Birss highlighted that while SJEs are typically the norm in less complex proceedings, their utility in high-stakes or technical cases must be assessed realistically. A central message of the ruling is that the court’s discretion remains paramount, with no absolute rules but rather a set of guiding factors: cost-efficiency, proportionality, procedural justice, and the overarching aim of facilitating a fair trial.

Conclusion

The implementation of the new Civil Procedure Rules in Cyprus marks a defining moment in its legal history. Central to these reforms is the enhanced role of expert evidence, now governed by a structure that prioritises efficiency without compromising fairness. The rules introduce a modern, principled approach to the appointment of SJEs, supported by a growing body of comparative case law from England and Wales.

Importantly, evolving jurisprudence reflects a nuanced understanding of when joint expert evidence suffices and when additional expert input is necessary. As Cyprus embraces this new procedural landscape, the integration of flexible, court-led case management—particularly around expert testimony—signals a broader commitment to elevating the quality and consistency of civil justice.

As the Cypriot courts begin to apply the new CPR in practice, it will be important to monitor how the judiciary balances flexibility, proportionality, and efficiency in expert evidence management. These reforms not only align Cyprus with international standards but also promise a more coherent and predictable litigation process moving forward.