Jump to content

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1865 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Sorry to trouble people with this but I'm looking for any technical or legal terms that relate to the following condition.


I'm due to go to court and this would be useful to make my point clear. It relates to experts and people representing institutions etc. giving evidence or statements in court. The validity or weighting etc. that their opinions are given to a case is related proportionally to the integrity, probity and track record, conduct etc. of the expert or person representing an institution - how they are seen in their professional capacity.


An example of this would be the IMF etc. who recommended that the UK should join the ERM; which was a flop, and for us to join the Euro saying if we didn't we would become an economic backwater - which we 'certainly' did, the Euro being such a resounding success!!!....... NOT.


Now the IMF et al are telling us to vote to remain. On their past track record their recommendations would been seen as highly suspect. So for the situation of a court is there a technical / legal term for a witness' or expert's credibility due to their past performance and conduct etc. which would affect the validity and weighting of their statement?

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello PomBlue.


Do you have a previous thread that this relates to please? It's hard to understand what you're trying to achieve without knowing the circumstances.



Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I'm looking for a legal or technical term that brings into question an expert's or institution's statement in a court of law because of their past record or success in their specialist field. I'm not looking for help per se in my present situation. I saw a lawyer on TV mention this as it was their job to do background checks on people/companies trying to sue the company he worked for or discredit them and stuff like that. If an opposition has a poor record then they carry less weight in a court of law - there are doubts about their claims. I thought he used a legal term for this but it was before my present situation so I never made a mental note of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't mention what your court case is about. If the opposition are offering technical evidence, then that is up to you or your representative to question their standing. I.e are they qualified to offer such evidence, what experience they have to offer evidence. Then questions about the evidence provided. Depending on the subject matter, you might need your own opinion.


If you have a Solicitor and/or Barrister acting for you, it is best if you follow the advice they provide. They will know the relevant court rules, law, precedents.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...