What none of us knows is by how much the rating had expired.
Try reading the original post again.
Neither the CAA nor the training organisation bears any legal responsibility in the case quoted. The responsibility to ensure that the authorisation was valid lay entirely with the examiner himself and, on the principle of 'caveat emptor', perhaps to a lesser extent with the candidate. Like Bose-x, I always offer my licence for examination by the candidate during the initial briefing.
The practice of examiners for the CPL and IR Skill Test being designated by the CAA should disappear on the introduction of Part-FCL. The 'competent authority' will be obliged to maintain and publish a list of examiners that they have authorised and the candidate will be free to select an examiner from the list. The 'competent authority' will, as part of its oversight programme, always have the right to decide that a test will be conducted by one of its inspectors but, beyond that, the choice remains with the candidate.
To expect the Authority to monitor all examiners on a day-to-day basis is, clearly, unrealistic. However, there is little question that some punitive action should be taken against the examiner involved in this case. Under Part-FCL, the restrictions placed on examiners are significantly more strict and a similar breach of the Regulation should result in a 3 year suspension of examiner privileges.