Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2025 » July » 31

EXPERT WATCH 6: THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT IS FAR BETTER QUALIFIED THAN THE CLAIMANT’S EXPERT: AN EXPERT WHO, IN PART, WAS ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE CLAIMANT

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I feel almost bound to apologise for adding another post to this series today. I am not going looking for cases on experts – they just  keep coming up.  Here we have a judgment given today in a clinical negligence…

EXPERT WATCH 5: AN EXPERT SHOULD DISCLOSE PREVIOUS CRITICISMS MADE BY JUDGES: PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED ABOUT THIS BEFORE…

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have seen a trend in a number of recent cases of advocates cross examining experts and referring to judicial criticism made in previous cases that experts have been involved in. The judgment here goes one further and indicates that…

EXPERT WATCH 4: THE EXPERT SHOULD INFORM THE COURT IF MEMBERSHIP OF A PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION HAD CEASED, PARTICULARLY IF THIS IS LINKED TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are returning (and not for the last time) to a recent decision where the court considered the expert evidence in detail. Here we look at the judgment in relation to an expert who failed, until prompted, to inform the…

EXPERT WATCH 3: EVIDENCE FROM EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: SOME OF THE EXPERTS FOUND WANTING

EXPERT WATCH 3: EVIDENCE FROM EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: SOME OF THE EXPERTS FOUND WANTING

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Here we are looking at a judge’s assessment of witnesses who gave evidence as to foreign law.  Some of the witnesses were found to be less then helpful. (This case appears to have taken up several months of court time….

COST BITES 263: QOCS AND CLAIMS AGAINST THE POLICE – A SIMILAR ISSUE TO YESTERDAY BUT WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT RESULT (NO ONE EVER SAID LITIGATION WAS EASY…)

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury, QOCS

Yesterday we looked at a case where, on appeal, the judge indicated that he would set aside a costs order made against the claimants who had brought an action against the police.  The claimants had QOCS protection. Today we look…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?
  • COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.