EXPERT WATCH 62: ANOTHER CASE WHERE THE EXPERT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE “BOLAM” TEST: PLUS THE DANGERS OF INSTRUCTING AN EXPERT BY A “PORTAL”
For the second time today I am writing about a case where the trial judge was concerned that an expert witness for the claimant did not fully understand the “Bolam” test. The concern also extends to the way in which…
A BOOK ABOUT SERVICE (AT LONG LAST): WHAT IS MORE IT IS IMPRESSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE AND FILLS A GAP IN THE MARKET (AND, THIS BLOG’S PART IN ITS CREATION)
Regular readers will know that this blog features a lot of cases about service of the claim form. It is one of the most common problem areas in litigation. It is surprising that there has not been a recent text…
THE RULES ARE CHANGING: ADVANCE NOTICE: GOODBYE TO THE CHANCERY DIVISION
A whole raft of changes come into force on the 1st October. The most noticeable will be that the Chancery Division disappears. There is also an end to the “presumption” that costs management takes place by telephone. Also note the…
EXPERT WATCH 61: THE EXPERT WAS TELLING ME WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE RATHER THAN APPLYING THE BOLAM STANDARD: CLAIMANT’S CASE FAILS AT TRIAL
This case looks at a common issue in relation to experts, particularly in clinical negligence cases. Specialists can report on what they would have done (given their own level of expertise) rather than what the “reasonable” practitioner would have done. …
You must be logged in to post a comment.