Funnily enough, Daily Mail then chose to run a piece that City had called Bennell as a witness for the club's defence.
Strangely choosing to omit he had been called by the insurers...
I'd forgotten about that. Ian Herbert wrote it, IIRC. He took the view that the case was in City's name so the club should be hammered, and didn't allude at all to the context.
The principle was exactly the same as if I were involved in a road traffic accident, had injured the other party, was viewed as being at fault and for some reason the case went to trial with me being sued because the insurers couldn't reach a settlement. My insurers, under the terms of my policy, would have full conduct of the case. That's exactly the same as City in the Bennell case.
If they chose to try and trash the reputation of the claimant by pointing to alcohol problems or mental health issues as likely to have been at the root of contributory negligence, I might well be horrified at the prospect. I'd have zero influence over what happened in the proceedings, though. Again, exactly the same for City regarding Bennell giving evidence.
Great post and I'd like to read more about this high court position re his competency. Would somebody mind directing me if possible? Thanks.
I finished my piece of work and have found it. The link to a PDF version of the judgment is here: Judgment in TVZ -v- Manchester City Football Club. I runs to 134 pages, so I expect most people won't want to wade through looking for the relevant bit. Let me tell you, then, that you want numbered paragraph 153.
As for what this means, let me point you to an article from May of this year on the website of Fieldfisher, a highly-rated international law firm with its HQ in London and an office in Manchester: Expert witnesses: The independence factor. They discuss issues arising from a recent case, but they have a helpful discussion of the nature of expert evidence as well:
What is an expert witness?
An expert is ‘a person who, through specialist training, study, or experience, is able to provide a court, tribunal, or hearing with relevant scientific, technical, or professional information or opinion, based on skills, expertise, or knowledge, that is likely to be beyond the experience and knowledge of the representing lawyers, judge, jury or panel’ (per Jackson and Powell on Professional Liability).
The main difference between an expert witness and a witness of fact (ie. an ordinary witness) is that the expert can provide an opinion, whereas the witness of fact may only give factual evidence.
The rules on expert witnesses in the courts of England and Wales are governed by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.35.
When is expert evidence required?
Expert evidence is required when the issues in dispute are beyond the knowledge of the presiding court.