Skip to Content

Expert insights during COVID-19: an English viewpoint

Daniela Bassan, QC

Using its COVID-19 Protocol, the English Technology and Construction Court (TCC) handed down remotely a decision about the role of experts in international arbitration and how multiple retainers by a global firm can be problematic in A v B, [2020] EWHC 809. The case, which was heard in private and did not identify party names, also confirms core principles – including duties of confidentiality, independence, and loyalty – which are familiar to Canadian common law and could be invoked in future domestic arbitration or litigation.

The context

The claimant is the developer of a petrochemical plant which was delayed in its construction. Two arbitrations were started in connection with the project: firstly, by the main contractor against the claimant regarding project delay costs, and secondly, by a third party against the claimant regarding amounts owned under project agreements. Among other things, the claimant sought to pass on to the third party, which was responsible for the issuance of construction drawings on the project, any claims for disruption and delay.

The first defendant (based in Asia) was engaged as an expert by the claimant on the first arbitration. The second defendant (domiciled in England) was retained by the third party to advise on the second arbitration.

The defendant group as a whole is managed and marketed as a global firm with common financial interests. The defendants internally decided that they were able to proceed with both retainers and put in place information barriers (or confidentiality screens) to separate the expert teams from the different offices.

The positions

The claimant subsequently took the position that the dual retainers by the defendants in the two arbitrations represented a conflict of interest. The defendants disagreed. The claimant applied to the TCC to formally restrain the defendants from acting as experts for the third party.

The claimant argued that its retainer of the expert defendant group gave rise to a fiduciary duty of loyalty and that this duty was breached when the defendants agreed to provide expert services to the third party in relation to the same project.

The defendants argued that they did not have a fiduciary duty of loyalty, but rather an overriding duty of independence and impartiality to the tribunal.

The decision

The key legal issue was whether the defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the claimant. The Court concluded that a duty did exist in the circumstances. The Court also found that the duty was not limited to an individual person or a specific office at the defendant firm, but rather extended to the whole defendant group given their global and financial connections.

The key practical question was whether the physical and ethical screens put in place between the defendants – so as to prevent any sharing of confidential information related to the two retainers – satisfied the duty of loyalty. The Court concluded that the screens were not enough because the fiduciary obligation of loyalty is not just about preserving confidentiality and privilege. It requires that the “fiduciary must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict”.

Applying this test, the Court found that “there is plainly a conflict of interest” for the defendants to provide expert services for the claimant in one arbitration and against the claimant in the other arbitration on the same project. The duty of loyalty was therefore breached by the defendants.

As a result, the Court granted the claimant’s request for an injunction so as to prevent the defendants from providing expert services to the third party.

The take-away

There are a number of legal and practical considerations arising from the decision. First, it is an open question whether, and to what extent, the same fiduciary principles could be applied to expert witnesses in other common law jurisdictions such as Canada. Second, even in the English context, the decision does not preclude parties from including more express conflict-of-interest language in their retainer agreements or from seeking the written consent of all parties in advance of any dual expert retainers. Third, the decision suggests that the manner in which an expert firm is structured financially, and promoted globally, can impact the scope of the firm’s fiduciary duty to clients. Once again, this issue goes beyond English borders due to the multinational nature of many expert firms. Fourth, the existence of a robust conflict-of-interest system may not be sufficient where the duty of loyalty of an expert (as opposed to the duty of confidentiality) is engaged or challenged by a client.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Intellectual Property group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

Archive

Nova Scotia’s Regulated Health Professions Act: What’s in store for 2025 and beyond?

BY Tyana R. Caplan & Jennifer Taylor

By Tyana Caplan & Jennifer Taylor Update: This article was originally published on January 6, 2025. It has since been updated to reflect new information. Halfway through 2025, the implementation…

Read More

Relief (potentially) in sight – The availability of remission under the Canadian retaliatory tariff regime (Part III)

BY Michelle Chai

By Michelle Chai In Parts I and II of this series, we discussed the remission guidelines and template for submissions published by the Department of Finance Canada (the “Guidelines”) for those…

Read More

Relief (potentially) in sight – The availability of remission under the Canadian retaliatory tariff regime (Part II)

BY Michelle Chai

By Michelle Chai In Part I of this series, we discussed the industries and goods eligible for remission.  In Parts II and III, we attempt to provide a framework for importers…

Read More

Relief (potentially) in sight – The availability of remission under the Canadian retaliatory tariff regime (Part I)

BY Michelle Chai

By Michelle Chai Government has implemented some processes which they hope will provide Canadian businesses and importers with some much-needed relief.  Update: An earlier version of this article was published before…

Read More

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal sends tort of “Intrusion Upon Seclusion” back into seclusion: Mount Pearl (City) v. Power, 2025 NLCA 16

BY Joe Thorne & Danielle Harris

By Joe Thorne and Danielle Harris After a brief two years of recognition in this province of a common law claim for breach of privacy, it seems its time has…

Read More

Preparing for Canada’s “Modern Slavery Act”: reporting deadline May 31

By Colleen Keyes, K.C., Christine Pound, ICD.D, and Harper Metler The 2024 reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) are due…

Read More

New harassment prevention obligations for Nova Scotia employers

By Sean Kelly, Katharine Mack and Tiegan Scott Effective September 1, 2025, amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act passed last year will require employers in Nova Scotia to…

Read More

Non-disclosure agreements: A sword or a shield?

Murray L. Murphy, K.C., CPHR, Katharine Mack and Kate Profit Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”), legal contracts in which the parties agree to keep information outlined in the agreement strictly confidential, have been the subject…

Read More

What are deceptive design patterns (DDPs)?

Charlotte Henderson and Kaitlyn Clarke Interested in understanding the impacts of AI on your business? Looking to understand how these intersect with concerns around privacy? Curious about the impacts of…

Read More

Effectively identifying and navigating subtle discrimination: A must-do list for employers

By Lynn Iding, CPHR, CCIP and Sheila Mecking Interested in understanding the impacts of subtle discrimination on your business? Curious about the latest legal developments in racial discrimination? Looking to…

Read More

Search Archive