WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026

Expert evidence plays a critical and often decisive role in clinical negligence litigation, and the ability to assess such evidence is a core skill for litigators. This webinar examines the legal framework and case law governing the credibility and admissibility of expert witnesses in the clinical negligence context. It provides an in-depth analysis of how courts evaluate expert evidence at trial, with particular focus on the reasons why expert opinions are rejected and the factors that lead a trial judge to prefer one expert’s evidence over another. Drawing on practical examples, the webinar highlights common pitfalls and warning signs in expert evidence and offers guidance on how these issues can influence the outcome of a case. Booking details are available here.

” [the expert] was wholly unable to articulate the test to be applied in determining breach of duty in a clinical negligence case. He was given a number of opportunities to explain it; he was asked the question in different ways; that did not assist him. In the end, he stated that he did not know the test to be applied. The Claimant then had no real choice but to discontinue her claim…”

USEFUL CHECKLISTS FOR LAWYERS AND EXPERTS

The webinar provides a series of useful checklists for legal practitioners and for experts which deal with the key issues relating to compliance and credibility.

Learning Objectives

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

• Understand the rules and key case law governing expert evidence in clinical negligence claims
• Identify the consequences of non-compliance with CPR Part 35 and associated guidance
• Recognise situations where an individual may be found to be “not an expert at all” or acting outside their area of expertise
• Spot common “red flags” that undermine the credibility and reliability of expert evidence
• Analyse how courts approach closely balanced cases and what factors ultimately tip the balance
• Assess how aspects of an expert’s CV and professional background may affect judicial confidence in their evidence.