Expert witness biased - can the court still use existing expert opinion? - Prozesskanzlei

LEGAL+ NEWS

Expert witness biased - can the court still use existing expert opinion?

In a ruling of practical relevance, the Federal Court of Justice clarified whether and in which cases the expert opinion of an expert declared to be biased may be used by the court.

Problem description: New expert opinion if the expert is biased, Section 412 (2) ZPO

Section 412 (2) ZPO states:

“(2) The court may order another expert to provide an expert opinion if an expert has been successfully rejected after providing the expert opinion.”

The wording “may” in Section 412 (2) ZPO suggests that expert opinions that have already been prepared may be used at the discretion of the court despite the expert’s bias.

The high workload in German courts is likely to tempt many judges to exploit the leeway that – supposedly – arises from Section 412 (2) ZPO to the detriment of the party affected by the bias.

The BGH has now rightly put a stop to this!

The BGH ruling of 05.12.2023 – VI ZR 34/22

In its ruling of December 5, 2023 (case no. VI ZR 34/22), the BGH first clarified that, regardless of the wording of Section 412 (2) ZPO (keyword: “may”), the expert opinion of a rejected expert may not be used.

According to the further explanations of the BGH, exceptions are only possible within very narrow limits, namely if

“the party invoking the expert’s bias has provoked the reason for refusal in an abusive manner and at the same time there is no cause for concern that the expert’s impartiality was already impaired when preparing his previous expert opinions.”

With regard to this exception, the Federal Court of Justice rightly went on to state that it cannot be sufficient for the assumption that there was no impairment of impartiality when the expert opinion was prepared that the connecting factor for the assumption of impartiality only came to light later, i.e. after the expert opinion was prepared. The BGH literally:

“It does not follow from the fact that a (possible) impairment of impartiality did not manifest itself earlier that such an impairment did not exist.”

Conclusion – expert opinion of a rejected expert practically never usable

The case that the expert opinion of an expert who has been rejected due to bias may nevertheless be used has a purely theoretical nature. This is because:

If the reason for refusal was provoked in an abusive manner, then the refusal of the expert on this ground alone is likely to fail.

However, once the expert has been rejected, it cannot be ruled out, irrespective of the specific circumstances, that the identified concern of bias already existed when the expert opinion was prepared.

Do you have any questions?

LATEST ARTICLES

Construction worker in protective uniform shaking hands with businessman in hardhat at construction

Commercial law

Bid low and look high – How to deal with unfair offers in construction law

LEGAL+ NEWS Building law guide: Bid low and look up

Corona as a disturbance of the business basis?

Since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, countless contractual relationships have not been able to be implemented as planned. The government corona measures, for which none of the contracting parties are naturally responsible, were mostly to blame. This has raised the exciting question of how to deal with cases in which the main contractual service – e.g. the provision of the premises in tenancy law constellations – could still be provided despite the corona measures, but the tenant was unable to use the premises in whole or in part as a result of the corona measures.

Action from abroad – service effective?

Being sued is always unpleasant. However, if you have to deal with a lawsuit from abroad, the annoyance is considerably greater for various reasons, just to mention the often considerable costs. The first question you should ask yourself when you find a claim from abroad in your letterbox is: Is service of the claim effective at all? This is often not the case, which brings you various advantages (e.g. saving time, possibility of taking your own procedural steps, etc.).