It is an established principle that a foreign law expert should not opine on the application of foreign law to the specific facts of the case, because it is the court's role to decide that. Accordingly, where documents are to be construed in accordance with foreign law, the expert can give evidence as to the relevant principles of construction but may not express an opinion as to the true construction of those documents (by applying those principles). One of the foreign law experts in this case was criticised by the other side for exceeding the proper ambit of his remit and answering questions which the court should instead decide. The judge said that there was "some substance" to that complaint on the facts. He had also displayed "a hint of advocacy", for example, arguing that the other side's expert had not raised a certain issue before. The judge said that he had borne these matters in mind when considering the expert evidence.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
