商業事件審理法之專家證人
—以英國法為借鏡

為求迅速、妥適、專業解決商業紛爭，我國2019年12月17日經立法院三讀通過商業事件審理法，並於2021年7月1日施行，以充實商業訴訟及非訟之審判程序。其中，該法為補強現行鑑定制度之不足，尊重當事人之程序主體權並保障證明權，乃參考英美法制新訂專家證人制度，使當事人經法院許可後得以聲明專家證人提供專業意見。專家證人制度固具控制專家、預測審判之優點，但於英、美各國實務上亦可見該制度具有證言流於偏頗、延滯訴訟、訴訟成本過高等缺點。為此，英國於1999年改革並制定民事訴訟規則，弱化專家證人制度之對抗性，使專家參與審判制度有別於傳統對抗制下具黨派性之專家證人。自商業事件審理法觀之，我國新訂之專家證人制度基本上亦參考自英國法，但我國相關文獻則甚少提及英國上述改革之討論內容與現行之實務狀況。再者，商業事件審理法未排除民事訴訟法所定鑑定人之適用，並增設商業調查官制度，而民事訴訟法草案復增加專業委員制度，則專家證人應如何與上開制度相互協力、分工，有進一步研議之必要。鑒於專家證人制度乃我國民事程序所新設，本文擬透過以英國法為中心之比較法研究，嘗試對此制度提出妥適之解釋論與運作論，甚至建構必要之立法論。本文共計六章。第一章簡要說明本文研究動機，並提出問題意識，劃定研究範圍。第二章考察英國舊法時代專家證人制度並說明其司法改革內容。其中第一、二節介紹英國專家證人之歷史沿革，並概述傳統專家證人制度之基本概念及其制度特色。第三節探討傳統專家證人制度在對抗制訴訟模式下，訴訟程序係由當事人及其律師主導之弊端，生成專家證人之黨派性格，導致大量且不必要之費用支出與訴訟遲延，並造成當事人間之武器不平等。對此，英國於1999年之司法改革以弱化對抗式訴訟文化為目標，要求法院積極對案件進行管理，強化法院對專家證據之控制權限，課予專家證人對法院負有優先義務，強調專家證人間之合作，加強專家證據之揭露，並引進單一共同專家。第三章介紹英國新訂民事訴訟規則有關專家證人制度之規範，共計五節分別說明新法下專家證人之定位、對專家證據之限制方式、專家證人之作證程式、對專業意見之檢驗及專家證人之權義、責任。第一節說明專家證人之定位，新法要求專家證人對法院負有獨立提出公正、客觀專業意見之優先義務，此義務優先於專家證人對指示方當事人之契約上義務，違反優先義務將受有嚴厲制裁；此外，新法鼓勵兩造共同選任、指示單一專家證人，就其費用負連帶責任。第二節就專家證據之提出，要求法院進行案件管理，控制專家證據於合理必要解決紛爭之範圍，未經法院許可當事人不得提出專家證據。第三節介紹專家證人之作證程式，專家報告原則上應以書面提出，且應事先揭露專家報告之內容及有關專家證人資格、公正性之事項與重要指示。第四節說明專業意見之檢驗程序，為兼顧促進訴訟與當事人程序保障，當事人得向他造專家證人進行書面詢問，並要求專家證人合作進行討論，以簡化、限縮爭點，減少交互詰問之進行，更增設協同專家證據，加強法院及當事人之發問權。最後探討專家證人之權利、義務及責任。第四章回歸我國商業事件審理法之討論，一方面介紹新訂之專家證人制度，另一方面比較、參考英國新專家證人制度，共計五節分別就我國專家證人之定位、限制方式、作證程式、檢驗、權義及責任嘗試提出妥適之解釋論與立法論。第一節就專家證人之定位，說明其屬證人之一種而非鑑定人，由當事人選任、支付報酬，但仍對法院負有公法上協力義務，須獨立提出公正之專業意見，具結並揭露影響其中立、客觀陳述之事項。第二節探討專家證人提出之限制，除專家證人之提出須當事人之聲明外，為促進訴訟，另採法院許可制，預設無需使用專家證人之立場，當事人須經法院許可始得聲明專家證人提供意見。第三節介紹專家證人之作證程式，為求慎重及避免延滯程序，專業意見原則上以書面為之，且應揭露影響專家證人公正性、獨立性之事項。第四節說明對專業意見之檢驗，擴大當事人證明權、聽審請求權之保障，新訂書面詢問制度、專家證人討論制度，並要求專家證人共同出庭討論，賦予當事人發問權。最後探討專家證人之權利、義務及責任，為避免向來鑑定人不願出庭之沉痾，強化專家證人出庭之義務，違反此義務將受有專業意見不被採納為證據之制裁；且專家證人之報酬、費用由當事人負擔，增進專家參與審判之意願。第五章介紹商業事件中專家參與審判之其他類型，並分析其等與專家證人間之任務分配。第一節概述我國鑑定制度，比較同為證據方法之鑑定人與專家證人間之制度異同、優劣，檢視專家證人與鑑定人於商業事件中之適用關係，並探討我國在專家證人與鑑定人外，是否尚有引進英國法單一共同專家之必要。第二節介紹商業調查官制度，分析屬諮詢者性質之商業調查官與屬證據方法之專家證人間如何協力、分工。第三節介紹民訴法草案增訂之專業委員，分析專業委員於商業事件中角色功能，與專家證人間如何協力、調和。最後，第六章總結本文之研究成果。

關鍵字

專家證人；商業事件審理法；鑑定；商業調查官；專業委員；程序保障

並列摘要

To resolve commercial disputes expeditiously, appropriately and professionally, the Commercial Case Adjudication Act was enacted in Taiwan. The act was based on English Law and introduced the expert witness system. However, there is a paucity of relevant literature in Taiwan mentioning the procedural rules and current practice of expert evidence in England and Wales. In addition, there are also questions as to how expert witnesses cooperate with other experts in Civil Procedure Law such as court-appointed experts. Therefore, this thesis seeks to contribute to a theory of operation for this system through comparative studies centered on English law, and even to the construction of a necessary legislative theory. First, this thesis looks at the English expert witness system in the Anglo-American tradition and provides the English evidence reforms. In the classical expert witness system, within an adversarial framework, civil litigation is dominated by lawyers and their clients. Such a situation creates partisanship for the expert witness, which leads to unnecessary costs, delays and complexity. In response to the problems, judicial reforms in England and Wales were undertaken and the Civil Procedure Rules were introduced in 1999. These developments in civil procedure aim to weaken the adversarial litigation culture by requiring courts to actively manage cases, strengthening the court's control over expert evidence, imposing an overriding duty on expert witnesses to the court, emphasizing cooperation among expert witnesses, requiring disclosure of expert evidence, and introducing single joint experts. Secondly, the thesis introduces the English civil procedure concerning the expert witness system and the current practice under the Civil Procedure Rules. Within the framework of the Civil Procedure Rules, the overriding duty to the court, which is imposed on an expert witness, is intended to ensure that an expert witness’s responsibility is to give evidence to the court impartially and to emphasize that this duty overrides any obligation the expert owes to those instructing him or her. In addition, the new rules encourage both parties to agree on a single joint expert wherever possible to strengthen the impartial role of experts. With respect to the use of expert evidence, a court is required to restrict expert evidence to that which is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly, and the parties ought to seek the court’s permission to adduce expert evidence. Where a party having obtained the court’s permission wishes to use an expert’s report, they must disclose the report. In order to avoid undue delay, the new rules provide that a party may put written questions about an export’s report to an expert instructed by another party, and that the court may direct a discussion between experts. Thirdly, this thesis introduces the expert witness system under Commercial Case Adjudication Act in Taiwan and compares it with the new English expert witness system. An expert witness under Commercial Case Adjudication Act is a type of witness, not a court-appointed expert, but like the English law, he or she still has a duty to the court to give an independent, objective and impartial opinion in relation to matters within their expertise. To avoid unnecessary costs and delay, where a party wishes to put in evidence an expert’s opinion, the court’s permission is required and shall be restricted to that expert evidence is necessary to resolve the proceedings. An expert opinion must be given in principle in a written report which shall disclose matters affecting the impartiality and independence of the expert witness. With regard to the examination of professional opinions, the act provides that a party may put to an expert instructed by another party written questions about his or her report, and that the court may direct a discussion between experts by reference to the English law and require expert witnesses to state their opinions in court, giving the parties the right to ask questions. To avoid the reluctance of expert witnesses to appear in court, the relevant obligation is strengthened, and the violation of this obligation will be sanctioned by excluding their professional opinions as evidence. Furthermore, the remuneration and other expenses of the expert witnesses shall be paid by the parties to increase the willingness of the experts to participate in the trial. Fourthly, the thesis identifies other types of experts in commercial matters and analyzes how these expert roles interact with expert witnesses. A court-appointed expert is compared with an expert witness and the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems are drawn. In addition, the relationship between expert witnesses and court-appointed experts in commercial disputes is examined, and the need to introduce a single joint expert in English law, in addition to expert witnesses and court-appointed experts, is explored. In addition, the commercial investigators under Commercial Case Adjudication Act and the professional advisors under Civil Procedure Law are introduced and examined in respect of how these two systems work in concert with expert witnesses.