EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT “PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY” BY THE COURT
We are looking at a case where expert evidence was of considerable importance. The claimants had already had permission to rely upon one of their experts disallowed because of issues relating to conduct. Here we have an example of the…
THE JOINT EXPERT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS: WEBINAR 1ST OCTOBER 2025: WITH SOME IMPORTANT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED
There have been some interesting decisions this year about the significance of the joint meeting of experts and also about the role of the “joint expert”. These decisions will be looked at in this webinar as they highlight the importance…
PROVING THINGS 269: PROVING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: IS TURNING A “BLIND EYE” ENOUGH?
This is an important and interesting case about findings of dishonesty on the part of a practising solicitor in their failure to make relevant checks on the background of their client. It was not suggested that the solicitor was aware…
MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA “HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE”)
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). However it is clear that it…
You must be logged in to post a comment.