EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2023: WEBINAR 24TH JANUARY 2024: ESSENTIAL ISSUES FOR ALL LITIGATORS AND EXPERTS

Over the course of 2023 we saw many cases in which the conduct of experts and those who instruct them came under close scrutiny  and criticism in the courts.  I am presenting a webinar on the 24th January 2024 reviewing cases on experts reported during the previous 12 months. The webinar looks at the key cases in detail and considers the practical implications for practitioners and experts.  Booking details are available here.

“Legal representatives bear a duty to notify an expert of any evidence which has emerged during the trial which the expert has not heard which may (and there only needs there to be a possibility) materially alter the opinion which he/she has previously expressed and ask them to reflect upon it. Further, if the experts opinion does change to ensure that it is set out in writing.”

THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBINAR

The webinar takes a close look at the important observations of Mr Justice Cotter in  Scarcliffe -v- Bramton Valley Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1565 (KB) as to the role of the expert. Other cases covered include:-

  • The Supreme Court decision in Griffiths -v- TUI [2023] UKSC 48. The need to put a case to the opponent’s expert and challenge the evidence fully.  The risks of an unfair trial.
  • Jennings v Otis Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB). A court will not necessarily allow the parties to call experts when a joint expert can be instructed.
  • White & Ors v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care[2022] EWHC 3082 (KB)  When a party does not call their own expert, but attempts to critique their opponent’s expert.
  • Wambura & Ors v Barrick TZ Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB). Claimants not given permission to rely on expert evidence.
  • N (A Child), Re (Instruction of Expert) [2022] EWCA Civ 1588, parties cannot insist that an expert be male.
  • Taylor & Anor v Raspin [2022] EWCA Civ 1613 . The limited role of the expert in findings of fact.
  • AAA -v- BBB [2022] EWHC 3103 (KB)  Parties should have been given permission to rely on expert evidence on deputyship and Court of Protection Costs.
  • Robinson -v- Liverpool Hospitals NHS Trust and Mercier [2023] EWHC 21 (KB). The setting aside of a non-part costs order against an expert.
  • GKE v Gunning [2023] EWHC 332 (KB) (The consequences of instructing the wrong expert).
  • Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB) (Defendant’s expert concedes claimant’s case in cross-examination).
  • Fawcett & Ors v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 400 (KB). Refusal of claimant’s application to exclude expert evidence.
  • Arrasey -v- Nelsons solicitors. Expert’s duty to consider and point out a conflict of interest.
  • Cannon v Bar Standards Board [2023] EWCA Civ 278. Expert evidence fails to establish lack of capacity.
  • Watts v Watts [2023] EWHC 679 (Ch). Handwriting experts considered.
  • Avantage (Cheshire) Ltd & Ors v GB Building Solutions Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 802 (TCC).  Principles governing an application to change expert.
  • M v F & Anor [2022] EWFC 186 Part of the expert’s report should have been a “red flag” to the lawyers.
  • Gheewalla v Rasul & Ors[2023] EWHC 2074 (Ch).  Costs consequences of failure to agree identity of a joint expert.
  • Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, Deceased & Anor [2023] EWHC 931 (KB) (Over-eager expert that simply addressed points that supported their hypothesis).
  • Packham v Wightman & Ors [2023] EWHC 1256 (KB). Expert certain as to handwriting, but the sample was not from the claimant).
  • ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Anor [2023] EWHC 986 (KB) (The need to test expert evidence prior to trial).
  • Doyle v HDI Global Specialty SE [2023] EWHC 2722 (KB). Action dismissed when the claimant was not allowed to adduce expert evidence.

 

In addition the webinar looks at the new section in the Kings Bench Division on the (absence of a) role of lawyers in the joint meeting of experts.