EXPERT WATCH 41: THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO OVERTURN A DECISION WHERE THE “WRONG” TYPE OF JOINT EXPERT WAS INSTRUCTED
This is an unusual case where, after the event, a party to the litigation argued that the court had relied on the “wrong” type of expert evidence. An educational psychologist had been instructed as a joint expert whereas what was…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 7: HEADING OFF PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET: (WEBINAR THIS THURSDAY 19th MARCH 2026 – WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS)
This short series has aimed to highlight the ongoing difficulties that litigators, in particular, can have with giving compliant costs information to their clients. In looking at this topic it is clear that there are numerous cases where clients have…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 6: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION: STATISTICAL RISK REDUCTION DOES NOT SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Establishing causation is a key element of many clinical negligence cases. Here we have a case where the issue of causation was put in two ways: the “but for” test and alternatively the “indivisible injury” test. The claimant did not…
COSTS INFORMATION AND THE OMBUDSMAN 6: YOU SAID IT WOULD COST £2,500 – £3,000 – I’VE PAID YOU £16,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING ESTIMATES AS TO DISBURSEMENTS
This decision emphasises the fact that when giving costs estimates the solicitor should also do their best to estimate the costs of disbursements in addition to their own costs. Here the solicitor mentioned that there would be additional costs if…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVING THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE “BEAR TRAP” IN WAITING
The back to basics point today is based on a recent case which shows the importance of serving the particulars of claim within the four month period allowed for service of the claim form. The claimant served the particulars three…
You must be logged in to post a comment.