DO LAWYERS (AND EXPERTS) LIKE CHECKLISTS THAT ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES? WELL, I MAY HAVE A TREAT FOR YOU TOMOPRROW

Checklists are always a feature of discussions I have with publishers and legal professionals.  I have prepared have created a whole series of checklists for lawyers (9 in total)  and a series for experts (6),  plus a “Judicial Red Flags” Checklist to ensure compliance and credibility when expert evidence is produced and relied upon. These are part of the materials being sent to delegates for the webinar tomorrow (3rd June 2026).  Booking details are available here.

Overview

This webinar examines how courts assess and evaluate expert evidence in personal injury litigation, with a particular focus on cases where one expert witness has been preferred over another. Through analysis of judicial reasoning, the session explores the key factors influencing the court’s decision-making and highlights practical lessons for litigators when selecting, preparing, and challenging expert witnesses.

The webinar covers a range of expert disciplines, including engineering, accident reconstruction, care, and medical evidence.

“…it is a clear that this was a very weak report which failed to comply with the requirements of an expert report”

Learning Objectives

By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to:

• Understand the key factors courts consider when preferring one expert witness over another in personal injury cases
• Identify common strengths and weaknesses in expert evidence across different disciplines
• Apply judicial guidance to the selection and instruction of expert witnesses
• Enhance strategies for preparing, presenting, and challenging expert evidence in litigation
• Draw practical lessons from case law involving engineering, reconstruction, care, and medical expert

“She demonstrated herself to be an expert who had little or no regard to the provisions of Part 35, the Practice Direction and the Guidance in preparing her reports and who was prepared materially to mislead the court by passing off the views of another person as her own by lifting large passages from that person’s article and setting them out in her report as if they represented her own views without acknowledgement or reference to the originating source”