Anyone confronted in proceedings with a report they dislike quickly thinks of bias. That route exists, but it is narrow: it requires grounds attaching to the person of the expert, not to their result.
The legal basis
Under section 406(1) ZPO an expert may be challenged on the same grounds that justify challenging a judge. What governs is therefore apprehension of bias: a ground that, viewed reasonably, justifies mistrust of impartiality.
Grounds that may apply
- Economic or personal closeness to a party, such as ongoing business relations
- Prior involvement with the same property for one of the parties
- Statements indicating a fixed position before the assessment is complete
- One-sided communication with one party bypassing the other
- Exceeding the scope of the instruction in a way that takes sides
Grounds that do not hold up
It is not enough that the result contradicts one's own expectation. Technical errors in themselves do not establish bias either — they are to be raised through objections. The line runs where errors can no longer be explained as mistakes but appear as one-sided treatment.
The period is short
The application to challenge is time-limited under section 406(2) ZPO and runs from notification of the identity of the expert, not from the finished report. Anyone challenging only after the result is available must show that the ground was not known earlier. The procedural assessment belongs in the hands of your legal representatives.
The often more effective route
In practice, engaging on the technical substance succeeds more often than an application for bias. A report whose methodological defects are specifically identified is more likely to prompt the court to hold a further hearing or order a fresh assessment under section 412 ZPO than an allegation of partiality.
How an existing report can be reviewed technically is set out under Review, arbitral and court appraisals.
Please note: the content of this article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, financial or investment advice. It is not a substitute for individual advice from a licensed lawyer, tax adviser or financial adviser. Despite careful research, we accept no liability for the accuracy, completeness or currency of the information provided. For specific legal or tax questions, please consult a qualified professional adviser.
