WHO IS AN EXPERT? NOW THERE’S A QUESTION: DEFINITIONS OF “EXPERT” CONSIDERED
The collapse of the “carbon credit fraud” prosecution today because an “expert” was found out to have no actual expertise leads to consideration of how exactly the courts define an “expert” . This does not give rise to a straightforward…
PROVING THINGS 153: “YOU DO NOT WIN A CASE ON INCONSISTENCIES”: WHEN THE APPLICANTS “PURSUED A CONFUSED AND POORLY EVIDENCED CASE FOR LITTLE PURPOSE”
Most cases are lost not on issues of law but on issues of evidence. In Stewart & Ors v Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber was particularly scathing of the quality of the applicants’ evidence. The judgment contains…
“THIS WAS A DECISION TAKEN ON FACTS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE”: MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE BY THE PAROLE BOARD: WHERE TWO CASES GET CONFUSED – HOW CAN WE SLEEP AT NIGHT?
It is unusual for this blog to look at decisions relating to Parole Board. However the careful gathering and analysis of evidence is central to every litigator’s role. A remarkable set of facts is outlined in the judgment of HHJ…
COURT OF APPEAL: NOT TOO KEEN ON PERMISSION BEING GRANTED FOR “ACADEMIC” ARGUMENTS
In J-S (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 894, the Court of Appeal declined to hear an argument that was “academic”. It also gave guidance to judges when considering applications for permission to appeal on the “other compelling reason for an appeal”…
You must be logged in to post a comment.