Fellow’s Corner

Fellow’s Corner

Fellows Corner

This series of articles is intended to highlight industry-wide engineering experience, guidance and focussed advice to practising technologists. It is written by ICorr Fellows  who have made significant contributions to the field of Corrosion Management.

B S Wyatt is an ICorr Past President, a member of the CP Governing Board (CPGB) and CEOCOR Immediate Past President. Brian is an independent Consulting Corrosion Engineer, a CP specialist in applications for steel in soils, waters and concrete. Experienced in design, performance assessment, detailed survey techniques and remedial work for:

• Onshore buried and offshore pipelines
• Offshore new build and retrofit CP for oil, gas and renewables structures
• Internal and external surfaces
• Coastal and port/harbour structures
• Steel in concrete for bridges, tunnels and buildings.

Brian is an expert witness in multiple sectors of CP, he has carried out technical consulting and project management of large and complex CP systems. He is a UK Nominated Expert by BSI for CEN/TC219 and ISO TC156/WG10. He is active in the ICorr Training, Examination and Certification of CP personnel in accordance with BS EN ISO 15257. Brian has competence Certification to ISO 15257 Level 4 in all 4 Sectors: Buried, Steel in Concrete, Marine and Internals and Certification to Level 5.

The Role of an Expert Witness

Introduction

I have been requested by the Editor to submit a paper on the role of an expert witness. For reasons I will explain below, this is quite a difficult task, but I will do my best within the necessary confidentiality of cases in which I have been appointed to this role.

There are several other Fellows of ICorr working as expert witnesses. Some, like me, only occasionally undertake such work, others have chosen this activity as a major part of their fee earning activities. One is resident in and very active in the USA.

I explain below, how I assess approaches from legal teams and determine if I think I am suitable for, and if I am prepared to act as an expert, in the case in which they are involved.

For those readers who have not experienced technical or construction disputes, and whose exposure to the actions of expert witnesses may be limited to newspaper reports of criticisms of expert witnesses, or the reported inadequate understanding of expert witness testimony by the courts, for example in UK medical negligence cases, or to fictional US cases in criminal cases, please be ready to be disabused.

General Rules

Firstly, the rules for expert witnesses are quite different in the UK and the USA. I have taken guidance in the summary below from the Global Arbitration Review1 and from Bond Salon2.

England and Wales have established the Civil Procedure Rules: Rules and Directions, Part 35 (CPR Part 35)3, which set out the requirements for expert evidence, specifically requiring that an expert witness has an overriding duty to the court to be independent and impartial. As a result, ‘experts should constantly remind themselves through the litigation process that they are not part of the Claimant’s or Defendant’s “team” with their role being the securing and maximising, or avoiding or minimising, a claim for damages. Although experts always owe a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care to those instructing them, and to comply with any relevant professional code, as CPR 35.3 expressly states, the experts have at all times, an overriding duty to help the court on matters within their expertise. That they have a particular expertise and the court and parties do not (save in some professional negligence claims) mean that significant reliance may be placed on their analysis, which must be objective and non-partisan if a just outcome is to be achieved in the litigation.4

From Ref 1 ‘The UK judiciary has made criticisms of expert evidence in, for example, ICI v. Merit,[15] Riva v. Fosters,[16] Energy Solutions v. NDA[17] and Russell and Anor v. Stone,[18] which highlighted that a ‘hired gun’ who pretends to be independent is of little help to a tribunal and may damage the position of the instructing party. It may cause the parties to incur higher expenses in the whole proceedings, prevent any settlements or render the expert evidence of little assistance to the tribunal. An expert must maintain objectivity and independence. The English courts have given many judgments regarding the bias of experts; for instance, in Jones v. Kaney,[19] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom removed the immunity of an expert witness from lawsuits for negligence.’

Expert witness reports are required to contain a ‘statement of truth’ which would typically be in the following form:

‘I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true.

The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.

I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.’

In one case in which I was involved, I was asked to attend chambers of the leading barrister who would be putting the case for the party who had appointed me. One of the expert witnesses for the other party had made claims that I considered to be spurious and that were directly contradicted by a published document that the expert had previously written; I had identified this in my opinion report. The barrister [many of whom can be quite robust] described the expert as a ‘man of straw’ and said that he would ‘enjoy picking the wings off this fly’. The case was settled before the hearing.

In the United States, Federal Rules of Evidence (US FRE) Article VII sets out the requirements governing the rules for opinion and expert testimony, which are less prescriptive. The conduct of expert witnesses, and their overriding duty to serve and assist the court, is not established under the US FRE. I am advised by my expert fellow colleague that there are differing rules in different states.

Corrosion expert witnesses in the USA and elsewhere, must be experienced and have specialized knowledge or skills to offer unbiased opinions to help attorneys, judges, mediators and juries understand complex corrosion issues.  The Daubert Standard5  is now the law in federal court and in other courts over half of the states.   Related to Daubert, attorneys may question expert witnesses if they are knowledgeable in the Scientific Principle6 7, which is intended to eliminate bias.

In the USA, a corrosion expert – before testifying – must stipulate that their scientific or engineering knowledge will assist the court or tribunal understand the facts in issue.  These responsibilities should ensure that expert witnesses are able to play a crucial role in ensuring fair and informed decision making in legal cases.

In international disputes the contract terms will normally have defined the rules and jurisdiction under which any dispute will be subject to arbitration or settlement, if the latter, often by an expert tribunal. In all in which I have been involved the CPR Part 35.3 rules have been applied either formally as these rules by name or by direct copying of their requirements. In large international construction contracts, the parties may have agreed to use a particular form of arbitration to address any disputes; one such is prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

With all this being said, the reality is that once appointed, all the information related to the case that the expert requires to properly execute his or her work comes from the instructing party’s legal team, and it is normal for there to be meetings with the legal team and with the instructing party’s personnel who have information on the matters in dispute. Eventually, some of these personnel with intimate knowledge of the matters in dispute will present their own witness statements. During the process there will be a need for legal advice for the expert in respect of procedures for the hearings in court or before a tribunal. Draft expert reports may be commented on by the instructing party’s legal team and barrister(s); however, at no time should the expert be prepared to receive or act on instruction to change his or her expressed opinion. During a long preparation for a hearing there is a risk that a ‘team spirit’ is developed, particularly if there are multiple experts with interlocking expertise; hence the emphasis in Ref. 4 above: ‘Experts should constantly remind themselves through the litigation process that they are not part of the claimant’s or defendant’s “team”, with their role being the securing and maximising, or avoiding or minimising, a claim for damages.’

In all of the expert witness cases in which I have been involved, before tribunals or an arbitration expert, the evidence and the outcome, where it has become known to me, have been strictly confidential. The details remain so. Therefore, my description of the process is necessarily restricted. In cases that are heard in the Technology and Construction Courts  , the CPR Part 35 rules apply, however, the judgements are published.

In my experience a typical process has been:

1. The Initial Contact

A phone call or e-mail, out of the blue, often from a legal professional, but occasionally from a technical or scientific professional with expertise in a related or unrelated field, typically asking guarded

questions regarding expertise, availability and, very soon, regarding conflicts of interests.

This might proceed to the exchange of limited documents regarding the dispute and the parties, under a confidentiality agreement. It is at this point where, historically, I have sometimes declined to be involved, either because I am not comfortable acting for the ‘instructing party’, or I think from the limited information available the instructing party’s case is likely ill-founded or indefensible, or I consider that my expertise is not appropriate for the scope of the case. Where I can, I have pointed the enquirer towards people, often also Fellows of ICorr, who I think are either more competent than I am in that field or more likely to wish to work on the particular case.

If I am interested and available and the key issues are within my expertise and still under confidentiality agreements, there are exchanges of more technical details, sometimes preliminary timetables and suggested fees. It is at this stage, before any appointment that I detail, that I describe, I hope honestly and self-critically, my relevant technical strengths and weaknesses.

2. The Appointment

Typically, quite quickly, a draft engagement letter will be sent by the instructing legal team, detailing who they act for, who are the parties to the dispute, and the jurisdiction which will hear the details of the dispute by way of the claims and counter claims, which may be an Arbitration Board, Tribunal or a Court. The engagement letter may also detail other experts already appointed, providing other expertise [e.g., coating, testing, etc.], and it may outline in more detail the provisional timetable. The legal team will have obtained approval from the court or tribunal for the appointment of experts and their anticipated costs.

The engagement letter will require confidentiality and ‘legal privilege’; likely all documents to and from the expert will be marked ‘Privileged and Confidential – prepared for use in XYZ proceedings. It will require disclosure of any conflicts of interest [which will likely exclude the expert from the proceedings] and either directly or indirectly, compliance with the CPR Part 35 rules. In all such cases, the workload and the attention to detail required are abnormal. I have had multiple boxes of small print A5 files of evidence arrive by courier on a Friday evening with a requirement for initial comments the following Monday morning. Every word on the page of an expert witness report, or ppt. presentation to be used in evidence should be 100% accurate and impossible to be misinterpreted.

In one of the largest cases in which I was involved, I gave evidence for a day and a half and ‘suffered interrogation’ from the most aggressive barrister I have ever met. My expert technical report, which I had worked on for many, many hours, was hardly addressed. I was advised afterwards that he could find nothing of substance in it to challenge, and his challenges were primarily of me and my expertise. Before this long tribunal hearing, I was grateful to have taken part in some expert training in how to deal with such questioning and how to react in front of the tribunal.

3. The Work Process

The overall Work scope typically falls into 4 stages:

• Outline and Scheduling

• Assessment

• Review and Final presentation

• Proceedings

Outline and Scheduling

Initially the expert will be presented with the claims and counter claims from the parties in the dispute, the claimant and the respondent.

At a relatively early stage in the process a draft timetable will be published advising when expert reports are to be submitted, if an ‘experts meeting’ is required, and when court or tribunal hearings are planned. At around the same time a list of experts will be exchanged between the claimant and respondent. This may result in an

assessment of particular areas of expertise being brought to bear on the evidence by one party and the need for the other party to strengthen the expert witness team in this area. It is critical at this time for any appointed experts to be realistic in respect of the limits of their expertise and experience. I have advised a legal team that a particular expert in the team for the other party had expertise beyond mine in what could be a relevant sector, and that the legal team should consider adding another expert in order to competently address matters within this sector.

Assessment

Then the real work begins, with a thorough review of all the available evidence, possibly requesting additional information if any is available, or suggesting additional testing in order to better inform if there is any ‘fault’ or to better determine the impact of any such fault on the required performance of the asset at the core of the dispute. All such requests and any additional data or site visits and their outcomes must be openly shared between all of the parties.

Depending upon the complexity of the dispute there may be many hundreds of relevant documents. Different legal firms have different methods of presenting these to experts, some largely in hard copy bound documents, some in well-constructed and easy to access electronic systems and some in less easy to use systems.

Review and Final presentation

I have been involved in a number of cases as an expert where I have been required to prepare power point presentations for the tribunal or arbitration board. The purpose is to present an accurate summary of the previously prepared expert opinion report which can be presented before the tribunal. Draft expert reports or opinions are presented, and questions can be submitted between claimant and respondent, in order to seek clarity.

It may also be required that experts appointed by both claimant and respondent meet, in what is termed an ‘experts meeting’ with the intention of determining what, if any, matters in dispute can be agreed between the experts, and thus to be removed from,  or closed off in, the later revisions of the expert opinion reports and the eventual proceedings. The intention is to simplify and reduce the costs of the process, whilst retaining the key issues in the dispute to be assessed by the court or tribunal without the distraction of matters that can be agreed. These meetings between experts are normally ‘without prejudice’ and the legal teams for the claimant and respondent may determine not to accept removing the agreed items from the dispute.

Proceedings

Experts should be prepared for the parties to a dispute to reach a compromise agreement in the weeks or even days before the planned court or tribunal hearing. This has happened to me in several cases.In one particularly complex overseas case I had been to the job site for some weeks, collecting more information and, in parallel, preparing the final version of my expert opinion report, along with a power point presentation to be used in the hearing. On the day before my planned time before the tribunal, for which I considered I was well prepared, I was phoned and told to go home; the matter had been settled. At the time I was disappointed, thinking that part of my work was incomplete; on reflection on this and other disputes settled before the planned court or tribunal hearing, the appropriate conclusion is that the expert has, to the best of his or her’s ability, clarified the matters in dispute for the parties and the court/tribunal in order to facilitate an agreed settlement. Job done.

Personal Experiences

Over the years I have been appointed as an expert in cases related to CP failures on sheet steel piles in seawater and saline infills, hot oil pipelines, to district heating schemes, to pipelines in swamps with disputed field joint coating quality, a buried pipeline with disputed field joint coating quality and disputed CP system adequacy, offshore wind farm monopile foundations, ship hull coatings and related CP performance and others. The Figures to the right are NOT from expert witness cases in which I have been appointed [due to confidentiality issues] but examples of some of the sectors in which I work.

External Corrosion on Buried Gas Transmission Pipeline:

The Thames Barrier London (not a dispute but a success where independent experts were assessing the corrosion protection performance)

A project on which I was involved for many hours alongside another Past President of ICorr, David Deacon. David was a respected coating expert, but not a believer in CP. He was persuaded of the efficacy of CP on this project, which was well designed by our mutual expert predecessors and we had the pleasure of assessing their success:

In my non-dispute related experience, often with colleagues, I have investigated and assisted in developing and executing remedies for failed corrosion protection schemes [CP, coatings and other related matters] or as independent technical expert(s) advising employers in complex CP related schemes being designed and executed by others. Much of the same rigour and obligations mandated to be applied in technical or construction dispute resolution outlined above are applicable to these activities. From my personal experience, expert witness work can be significantly disruptive to other professional activities and to personal life, but I have enjoyed the intellectual challenge of attempting to make the evidence to the court, or tribunal, complete, clear, detailed and as far as possible, difficult for a barrister whose role is to demolish my evidence or credibility to the benefit of his or her client, to misinterpret. In all of this, the evidence is not for the barristers, it is for the judge or tribunal panel and is intended to make what can be quite complex and subtle technical matters clear to all.

References

1. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-construction-arbitration-archived/fifth-edition/article/expert-evidence-in-construction-disputes-expert-witness-perspective .

2. https://www.bondsolon.com/expert-witness/expert-witness-training/

3. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35

Quotation from a Bond Salon briefing note regarding a 2022 dispute.

4. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2022/2648.html

5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard.

6. https://legalclarity.org/what-is-an-example-of-the-frye-standard-in-court/

7. Scientific principles give foundation to definitive expert opinions evaluating hypotheses for causation and feasibility for extraordinary claims.

8. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/high-court/technology-and-construction-court/

 

 

 

 

CED – Join the New CED Committee

CED – Join the New CED Committee

Institute News, Latest News

We’re rebuilding – and we want you with us

The ICorr Corrosion Engineering Division (CED) is undergoing a major refresh – and we’re looking for passionate corrosion professionals across the UK to help shape our next chapter.

Whether you’re working in energy, infrastructure, materials, asset integrity or beyond – if you care about corrosion and want to share your knowledge, build your profile, and contribute to a growing technical community… we’d love to hear from you.

We’re establishing a new committee to align with our refreshed structure and strategy. This is an exciting opportunity to join a supportive, cross-sector group with a shared vision:

Our Vision: To champion corrosion engineering through connection, collaboration, and contribution – bringing professionals together to share practical insights, tackle emerging challenges, and influence industry best practice.

Who We’re Looking For?

We welcome expressions of interest from individuals who are:

• Based in the UK

•Working in or passionate about corrosion engineering and science

• Keen to contribute their ideas, experience and time

•Interested in building their network, shaping strategy, or supporting technical activities

Whether you’re early in your career or a senior specialist, there’s a place for you.

Committee Opportunities

We’re currently seeking:

• Vice Chair (with possible progression to Chair)

•Working Party Leads – guiding topic-based technical communities

•Committee Members – supporting events, outreach, and growth

Working Parties – Lead or Get Involved

As part of our revitalised structure, we’re forming broad, strategic working parties designed to be more inclusive, collaborative, and aligned with industry challenges:

Each group will meet 2–3 times a year and contribute to events, discussions, and outputs.

What’s involved?

We’re a volunteer-led committee and aim to keep involvement flexible, rewarding, and well-supported. Typical contributions include:

• Bi-monthly online committee meetings (30–60 mins)

• Working Party involvement (2–3 short meetings per year)

• Helping shape or promote our events and outputs

• Supporting outreach, mentoring, or knowledge-sharing

Key Annual CED Events

•ICorr CED One-Day Technical Conference

    (April – aligned with Corrosion Awareness Day)

• Paul McIntyre Award Presentation & Celebration

• Technical Webinar (November/December)

• ICorr AGM Participation and Reporting

What’s Next for the CED?

Our priorities for 2025–2026

• Rebuild a diverse, cross-sector committee

• Launch working parties aligned to current challenges

• Enhance our online presence and resource hub

• Strengthen collaboration with the Corrosion Science Division

• Celebrate excellence through the Paul McIntyre Award

• Continue growing our flagship events and technical visibility

Interested in Joining?

If you’re motivated by collaboration, knowledge-sharing and professional growth – and want to help move corrosion engineering forward – we want to hear from you.

Get in touch: Danny Burkle, Chair, Corrosion Engineering Division, Email:  CEDchair@icorr.org

CEng Updates

Institute News, Latest News

New application are being processed and assessors are adjustinh to their new roles.  The website is being updated to provide the documentation and processes as per the ICorr direct licence.

Our much-valued assessors come from varied backgrounds to review and assess the applications from ICorr’s wide-ranging membership. These volunteers are contributing to ICorr to support our members to attain the registration status with the Engineering Council.

Anthony Setiadi: Anthony is a chartered engineer currently working for Wood Thilsted, an offshore renewable consultancy. He has more than 20 years in the industry covering various energy and infrastructure roles and studied materials science at the University of Sheffield. He works in materials selection, coating and cathodic protection. He is also supporting ICorr as vice president and has been leading the ICorr registration process for the past 3 years.

Greg Brown: Greg is a senior materials engineer at Mott MacDonald, and he is currently chair of the ICorr Northwest branch. He is highly experienced in destructive and non-destructive testing and is a chartered engineer. He has been part of the Registration committee for the past 2 years.

Jim Preston: Jim is Managing Director of Corrosion Prevention Limited. He has worked in the fields of structural concrete repair and cathodic protection for over 30 years, including 15 years working for contracting organisations and latterly 15 years as a consultant. He is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of ICorr. He is a certified Level 4 CP Specialist in accordance with ISO 15257.

Ashokan Gopal: Ashokan Gopal is an electrochemical engineer and an industry-recognised cathodic protection expert in the UK with over 18 years of experience in the field of corrosion mitigation and cathodic protection. He is a chartered engineer with a master’s in corrosion control engineering from the University of Manchester. He is currently the vice-chair for the London ICorr Branch and an active member of the ICorr CPGB, working closely with the industry’s best minds. He is a certified Level 4 CP Specialist in accordance with ISO 15257.

Emilya Abdullayeva: Emilya is a senior corrosion engineer in SLB with 20+ years of experience in corrosion engineering, integrity chemicals, and microbiological control across upstream oil and gas operations. She has a master’s degree in engineering oil and gas and a PhD in corrosion inhibitors and MIC control in the oil and gas industry. Chartered Chemist from the Royal Society of Chemistry and Chartered Engineer from ICorr.

Ibtesam Hasan: Ibtesam is a chartered metallurgy and materials engineer with over 20 years of experience in offshore oil and gas. He currently manages P&L for IMR operations for the Fugro Middle East office. He holds degrees in metallurgy and materials and a PgD in corrosion control engineering, complemented by NACE and API certifications.

Azri Aziz: Azri is a chartered engineer and currently works as a senior corrosion engineer at Aramco. He has 14 years of experience in corrosion engineering and integrity management within the oil and gas industry. He holds a degree in Materials Engineering and an MSc in Corrosion Control Engineering, complemented by professional certifications from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and AMPP. Azri has a strong track record of developing and implementing integrity management strategies, ensuring asset reliability and driving industry best practices in corrosion control in operating assets.

Lian Ling Beh: Lian is a chartered engineer and professional member of ICorr. She is a materials and corrosion engineer with nearly 20 years of experience in asset integrity and management in the North Sea. Currently supporting operations across BP’s NS assets, providing consultation to multidisciplinary teams, including pressure systems, pipelines, mechanical and rotating equipment, structural integrity and lifting equipment.

Olubayo Latinwo: Olubayo is an asset integrity specialist with over 20 years’ experience across international oil and gas assets. He earned his PhD in Engineering Materials in 2012. Olubayo is a professional member of ICorr, IOM3 and IAM. He is also a Chartered Scientist and Chartered Engineer with the Science and Engineering Council, respectively, and also has multiple qualifications with AMPP and API. He has been part of the Aberdeen Branch of the Institute of Corrosion for 6 years in various roles, including Vice Chair. He has also been a formal PAC assessor for the MICorr grade for over 4 years with the Institute of Corrosion.

Syed Umair Niaz: Syed is a Chartered Scientist and Chartered Engineer with nearly 15 years of experience, having a degree in mechanical engineering with a strong focus on corrosion management, coating selection, and welding integrity. He has authored numerous publications in these fields and currently works with EDF France, based in the UK, leveraging his expertise to drive innovation and excellence. He is also serving ICorr as a member of the Professional Assessment Committee (PAC) and an assessor for CEng registrations.

ISO 15257 Level 4 Cathodic Protection Examination dates for 2026

Institute News, Latest News

LEVEL 4 ENGINEER EXAMINATIONS TO BS EN ISO 15257

Level 4 Certification of Competence is a requirement for the design of Cathodic Protection (CP) systems in all the BS, EN and ISO Cathodic Protection Standards. See the attached brochure on the ICorr CP Scheme and the Standards for more details.

It is expected that Candidates will already have Certification for Level 3 in the Sector in which they are applying and the requisite experience (see Preliminaries item 8 below). They must have passed the L3 Examination in that Sector, there is no dispensation.

Examinations:

All Level 4 examinations are presently held in Northampton at the Institute of Corrosion HQ, Corrosion House; see https://www.icorr.org They will be held typically 4 times per year; the facility is spacious, complies with UK Governments rules and guidance related to C-19. It is a short walk from the station; there is a modern budget hotel and parking nearby. Candidates are required to book one of the dates below; no other dates will be available. If one date does not suit you, choose another from the list. If there is limited demand for a particular date, we may cancel that from the programme and allocate your booking to the next examination date, whilst advising you. We will strive to avoid delaying your examination by more than 3-4 months. The examination is closed book, desk based, handwritten, with no practical element (this is in the mandatory L3) and is expected to take some 6.5 Hours, in 3 sessions with breaks between. A simple calculator, a Casio FX-991EX) will be provided; you will not be permitted access to any other electronic device. IF you are sitting the examination for more than one Sector (Buried, Steel in Concrete, Marine, Internals) you will need to sit for more than one date of those below:

Thursdays: 2026: 26 February, 4 June, 10 September, 26 November     

Examination arrangements are:

Book and pay for the Examination at least 1 month before the date you plan to attend. Do not attend unless you have confirmation of your place from Corrosion House.

Start 0900 Hrs: Book in, identification (passport or driving licence with picture), remove mobiles, laptops, smart watches, calculators to locked facility. No access to these during the day. Tea or coffee.

Expect to start examination at 0930 Hrs

Core: Applies to all Sectors: 2.5 Hours, 0930 to 1200 Hrs If you have previously passed the Core Examination, you may, after notifying Corrosion House, plan to arrive no later than 1215 Hrs to book in as above and be ready to commence as below, or you can arrive during the morning and finish early:

Break for lunch (provided)

Design Sector Specific: 2 Hrs, 1245 to 1445 Hrs

Break for tea or coffee

Performance Assessment: Sector Specific: 2 Hrs, 1500 to 1700 Hrs

Collect mobiles, laptops, calculators etc and depart building 1715 Hrs

Preliminaries:

  1. It is expected that candidates will only be sitting the Level 4 ISO 12527 examination if they are planning to apply to ICorr for certification for Level 4. This is an entirely separate process. It requires a separate application form and a certification fee; it involves an independent assessment of the candidate’s work experience, a refereed Application and a Dossier detailing completed complex projects.
  2. All Candidates must be competent in all the key tasks and knowledge required at Level 3 in the CP Sector for which you are applying at Level 4. Accordingly, you must have a valid Level 3 Examination pass in all parts of the examination, the Core, the Sector Specific and the Sector Specific Practical Examination; there is no dispensation available to avoid this.
  3. If you do not already have Level 3 certification and your cv clearly shows that it is likely that you do meet the experience requirements for Level 4, you can sit the Level 3 examination without attending the Level 3 Course. This includes the Level 3 Practical examination in the Sector(s) applicable to your intended Level 4 application(s). If you pass the examinations, you may choose to obtain L3 certification, but need not delay your application for L4, but if you fail the certification for L3 you will fail for L4.
  4. At present there are no ICorr Level 4 Courses; you are expected to have learned the skills and gained the competence by working alongside CP Engineers or Specialists more experienced than you, preferably Certificated to Level 4, and by personal study and attending conferences and courses. This is expected to have taken some years of supervised design and other challenging CP work after your Level 3 certification.
  5. The main difference between L3 and L4 is that the latter requires the competence and the experience of undertaking, without guidance, complicated and detailed CP designs. The full requirements are summarised as being competent in the of design cathodic protection systems, to establish and validate cathodic protection criteria and testing procedures, to interpret standards, codes, specifications and procedures, to designate the particular cathodic protection test methods and procedures to be used, to interpret the reported results of cathodic protection testing and use them in performance verification, to determine any remedial actions and to carry out and supervise all Level 1,2 and 3 duties.
  6. Level 4 personnel shall have a detailed knowledge of corrosion theory, cathodic protection design, installation, commissioning, testing and performance evaluation including safety in at least one application sector, competence to undertake without supervision the design of complex cathodic protection systems in at least one application sector, sufficient theoretical knowledge and practical experience of cathodic protection to select cathodic protection testing methods, survey requirements and performance criteria. They shall have competence to evaluate and interpret results of cathodic protection performance in accordance with existing standards, codes and specifications, competence to assist in establishing testing and performance criteria where none are otherwise available and a general familiarity with cathodic protection in other application sectors.
  7. The examination is designed to test these abilities. It will be challenging; some candidates will fail.
  8. The separate certification procedure will more rigorously assess these by way of your experience and what you can document in terms of projects, including complex CP designs. Certification to L4 requires 3 to 8 years’ CP experience [dependent on qualifications] if progressing from full Certification at Level 3, or 5 to 12 years’ experience if applying directly for Level 4 after only passing the L3 examination. You may sit the L4 examination early, but the above experience requirements will be used in your certification assessment after you pass the examination. You will need to prepare a detailed dossier detailing more than one and ideally 3 detailed designs in each Sector. You will not achieve certification until your experience has been assessed and you are likely to be interviewed by the ICorr Professional Assessment Committee during this process.

Examination Booking Form

ICorr CED Announces Professor Damien Féron as the Winner of the 2025 Paul McIntyre Award

ICorr CED Announces Professor Damien Féron as the Winner of the 2025 Paul McIntyre Award

Institute News, Latest News

The Corrosion Engineering Division (CED) of the Institute of Corrosion is delighted to announce that Professor Damien Féron will receive the Paul McIntyre Award at the 2025 ICorr Annual General Meeting (AGM), to be held at the Henry Royce Institute in Manchester on Tuesday, 4th November 2025.

The Paul McIntyre Award is the highest honour presented by ICorr CED. It recognises a senior corrosion engineer who has not only made significant technical contributions, but has also championed European collaboration and international standards – reflecting the values and legacy of the late Professor Paul McIntyre.

Professor Féron has had a distinguished career at the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and continues to serve as Scientific Adviser and Professor at INSTN, the National Institute for Nuclear Science and Technology. His work spans nuclear corrosion, marine corrosion, biocorrosion, and long-term prediction of corrosion damage, with wide-ranging applications in both civil and nuclear industries.

A globally recognised leader in corrosion science, Damien has authored or edited more than 25 books and special issues, delivered over 100 invited lectures, and participated in numerous international advisory boards. His international standing is matched by an unwavering commitment to collaborative science – evident in his leadership roles across the European Federation of Corrosion (EFC), where he served as Chairman of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee (2007-2013) and as President from 2017-18, and the World Corrosion Organization (WCO, President from 2019–2022)

Professor Féron was also instrumental in establishing and leading major educational and technical initiatives, such as the Nuclear Corrosion Summer School (NuCoSS) and the long-running LTC Workshops on corrosion prediction in nuclear waste systems. Through these and many other efforts, he has mentored a generation of corrosion scientists and engineers across Europe and beyond.

The Paul McIntyre Award is a fitting recognition of Professor Féron’s remarkable contributions to corrosion science, education, and international cooperation.

The award will be formally presented during the ICorr AGM in Manchester, jointly hosted by ICorr Northwest Branch and the Henry Royce Institute. Professor Féron will also be invited to contribute an article to Corrosion Management magazine.