We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
16 February 2021
For the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the duties of an expert concurrently engaged in two potentially conflicting disputes. While Secretariat Consulting Pte Ltd v A Company involved an unusual set of circumstances, it provides an interesting review of the duties owed by expert witnesses to their clients and the court and highlights important considerations for those engaging expert witnesses and drafting engagement letters.(1)
Secretariat Consulting Pte Ltd (SCL) provides expert litigation and arbitration support services to the construction industry. Based in Singapore, it is an entity within a larger group. SCL was approached by the solicitors of an organisation involved in a dispute to provide arbitration support and expert services in an arbitration (Arbitration 1) on delay and disruption. SCL ran a conflict check across all entities in the group and confirmed that it was clear. A confidentiality agreement was signed.
A third party later commenced an arbitration (Arbitration 2) against the organisation, which included a claim for fees in part relating to the delay at issue in Arbitration 1. The organisation counterclaimed in Arbitration 2 for the cost consequences of the third party's failure that had led to the relevant delay. The third party sought to engage another part of the group, Secretariat International UK Limited (SIUL), in the United Kingdom, as an expert in Arbitration 2. Given the nature of the dispute in Arbitration 2, if engaged, SIUL would effectively be acting adverse to the organisation.
After SIUL ran a conflict check which revealed SCL's engagement, SCL wrote to the organisation's solicitors saying that SIUL's engagement by the third party (which it characterised as being across two offices on different matters) "would not constitute a 'strict' legal conflict". The organisation's solicitors expressly disagreed but SIUL proceeded to act for the third party in Arbitration 2.
The organisation issued an urgent ex parte application for interim injunction against three members of the group, claiming (among other things) breach of fiduciary duty. The issue found its way to the Court of Appeal.
There is no prior English authority on the issue of whether an expert owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty to its client. The court considered cases from Australia(2) and Ireland,(3) but noted that there was no guiding precedent in this respect. Fiduciary duties normally arise in settled categories of relationship where there is a high degree of mutual trust and confidence between the parties (eg, trustee and beneficiary, solicitor and client or agent and principal) and where one party is in a position to exercise judgment and make discretionary decisions on the part of the principal, acting solely in the interests thereof.(4)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's submission that an expert's overriding duty to the court or tribunal precluded a finding of fiduciary duty on the basis that it negated the requisite duty of undivided loyalty to the client. An expert's overriding duty to the court could be said to be one of the main reasons why the expert may owe a duty of loyalty to the client, as it is in the client's best interests for an expert to provide measured and objective evidence which will be given greater weight than if the expert is perceived to be lacking objectivity.
Although the court rejected this argument, it was reluctant to conclude that there was in fact a fiduciary duty owed (as the first-instance decision had concluded) in circumstances where the finding was not necessary for the disposition of the appeal.
It was common ground that two letters of engagement between SCL and the organisation's solicitors constituted a contract. The engagement letters referred to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators' Expert Witness Protocol and expressly stated that SCL had "confirmed you have no conflict of interest in acting for [the organisation] in this engagement. You will maintain this position for the duration of your engagement" (emphasis in judgment).
The court was satisfied that SCL owed the organisation a clear contractual duty to avoid conflicts of interest for the duration of their retainer.(5)
Was that same duty owed by the other entities in the group? The key points considered by Lord Justice Coulson were that:
The court concluded that, on the facts, the overlaps in this case (including the identities of the parties, the experts' roles, the specific project and the dispute's subject matter) were so "all-pervasive" that they clearly gave rise to a conflict of interest. The court dismissed the appeal.
Although the Court of Appeal did not rule on the existence of a fiduciary duty, the door remains ajar for argument. The court did comment, when considering Sweeney, that:
the relationship between a client and an expert witness does have at least some characteristics of a fiduciary relationship (in particular an obligation of loyalty), even if it is not itself a fiduciary relationship.(6)
The court also took pains to note that its construction of the effect of the contractual agreement as applying to the group did not pierce the corporate veil because it turned on how the group chose to present itself (ie, a global firm providing services in a variety of offices in different jurisdictions). Lord Justice Males suggested that any concerned entities should take care in drafting their conflict searches and contracts to ensure that any undertaking given (eg, in a group company situation) is limited to the particular company being instructed (to the extent that prospective clients would accept such a carve out).(7)
For further information on this topic please contact Alexandra Shearer or Simon Hart at RPC by telephone (+44 20 3060 6000) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The RPC website can be accessed at www.rpc.co.uk.
(2) Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty v Iluka Midwest  FCA 653. This case related to one party's use of an expert in a patent dispute after the expert had previously done consultancy work with the other party. The court held that no duty could be implied on the facts because the experts were "independent contractors performing specific work" and the claimant knew that the expert had worked for the respondent.
(3) Sweeney v The Voluntary Health Insurance Board  IECA 150 at  to . This case related to the engagement of an economic expert in competition law actions who was and continued to be retained by the respondent in connection with related pleadings. The court concluded that there was a significant conflict of interest, but neither party alleged the existence of a fiduciary duty. The court noted in obiter that establishing a fiduciary duty would have far-reaching implications and put an expert witness in an impossible position.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.