EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND “WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION”
Here we look at a judgment about medical evidence in a personal injury action. The issue was one of causation – whether an earlier injury to the claimant’s leg “caused” a later decision to have that leg amputated. The critique…
EXPERT WATCH 19: THE EXPERT WHO WAS “FIGHTING HIS CORNER RATHER THAN TAKING A DISPASSIONATE APPROACH TO THE ISSUES RAISED”
Here we look at the judge’s views as to the approach taken by experts in a clinical negligence case. The judge clearly preferred the approach of one expert to that of another. One expert was “fighting his corner” rather than…
EXPERT WATCH 18: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SIGHT OF DEFENDANT’S DRAFT REPORT – REFERRED TO IN DEFENCE AND THE REPORT OF ANOTHER EXPERT
Here we look at a claimant’s applications under CPR 31.14(1) and 35.10 to have sight of a draft expert report that the defendant had referred to in a defence and in the report of another expert. The judgment contains a…
EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
It is rare for there to be a detailed consideration of the principles relating to whether expert evidence is necessary, admissible or desirable. There is a detailed consideration of the principles here, combined with some clear observations on the necessity…
EXPERT WATCH 16: IS PART 35 PERMISSION NEEDED WHEN A DOCTOR GIVES OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO A PARTY’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN LITIGATION?
Here we look at a case where a party was seeking a stay of litigation on medical grounds. Medical evidence was provided which supported the litigant’s stance. The claimant took objection to the report as it contained “opinion” and the…
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…
EXPERT WATCH 13: “IT SUGGESTS THE WITNESS WAS SEEKING TO BUILD A CASE FOR THE CLAIMANTS RATHER THAN INDEPENDENTLY ANALYSE THE EVIDENCE IN REACHING HIS OPINION”: THE JUDGE FINDS THIS TROUBLING
Here we are looking a judicial observations about the role of forensic reconstruction experts. There are telling comments on the reasons the judge preferred one expert over another. Again it comes down to a simple failure to consider and apply…
EXPERT WATCH 13: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE A NEW CASE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT (HOW DO WE THINK THIS WENT?)
We are looking at a case where the claimant’s expert, belatedly, accepted that the reports he was relying on were unreliable. The claimant then attempted to introduce new matters and evidence to bolster an alternative case. The judge rejected that…
THREE WEBINARS ON EXPERTS: THE JOINT EXPERT AND MEETING OF EXPERTS; PART 35 QUESTIONS AND EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025
The way in which the “Expert Watch” series has quickly developed shows that issues relating to expert evidence continue to give rise to problems. These three webinars explore many of the major issues in relation to experts. Dealing with the…
EXPERT WATCH 12: “THE EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR BOTH SIDES HAD PROBLEMS”: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT
We look here at an unusual set of facts relating to the judge’s assessment of expert evidence. Firstly the judge found that the claimant’s expert had no real experience of the specific issue in question in the action; she also…
EXPERT WATCH 11: EXPERT ASSERTS THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS MALINGERING BUT WOULDN’T TELL THE COURT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE TESTS THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION
We have seen some unusual conduct of experts on this site. However the case we look at today has elements that we have not looked at before. An expert carried out tests on the claimant and, as a result of…
EXPERT WATCH 10: CLAIMANT UNSUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL IN ATTEMPTING TO OVERTURN THE TRIAL JUDGE’S PREFERENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: “THE IRREDUCIBLE FACT IS IS THAT THE JUDGE ACCEPTED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT’S KEY WITNESS AND PREFERRED TO OVER THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT’S KEY EXPERT WITNESS”
There are relatively few cases where a party appeals on the basis that trial judge was wrong to accept the evidence of one party’s expert witness in preference to the other. There are even fewer cases where such an appeal…
EXPERT WATCH 9: FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL AND TO INFORM THE EXPERTS OF THE DEFENDANT’S CASE COULD RENDER THE EVIDENCE “USELESS”: AN EXPENSIVE DAY OUT FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS…
Here we look at a decision not about the conduct of experts but the way in which the experts were instructed and failure to comply with pre-action protocols. On the face of it this is a decision of major importance…
EXPERT WATCH 8: “SCIENCE DOES NOT CHANGE” : EVIDENCE THAT WAS “UNIMPRESSIVE IN PARTS AND OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT”
To end the week I am looking at another decision about expert witnesses (it has been a theme this week). This time we are looking at accident reconstruction experts. One expert was found wanting, the judge favoured the other. The…
EXPERT WATCH 7: “THIS CASE IS NOT SHORT OF ADVOCATES”: AN EXPERT REPORTING FOR THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM: FURTHER THEY SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THAT THEY HAD “COPIED” THEIR REPORT
Yesterday I imposed a 24 hour respite on this series “unless something really interesting comes up”. I have broken that promise, it lasted 22 hours. However the cases on experts keep coming in and, I think, readers need to know…
EXPERT WATCH 6: THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT IS FAR BETTER QUALIFIED THAN THE CLAIMANT’S EXPERT: AN EXPERT WHO, IN PART, WAS ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE CLAIMANT
I feel almost bound to apologise for adding another post to this series today. I am not going looking for cases on experts – they just keep coming up. Here we have a judgment given today in a clinical negligence…
EXPERT WATCH 5: AN EXPERT SHOULD DISCLOSE PREVIOUS CRITICISMS MADE BY JUDGES: PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED ABOUT THIS BEFORE…
We have seen a trend in a number of recent cases of advocates cross examining experts and referring to judicial criticism made in previous cases that experts have been involved in. The judgment here goes one further and indicates that…
EXPERT WATCH 4: THE EXPERT SHOULD INFORM THE COURT IF MEMBERSHIP OF A PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION HAD CEASED, PARTICULARLY IF THIS IS LINKED TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM
We are returning (and not for the last time) to a recent decision where the court considered the expert evidence in detail. Here we look at the judgment in relation to an expert who failed, until prompted, to inform the…
EXPERT WATCH 3: EVIDENCE FROM EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: SOME OF THE EXPERTS FOUND WANTING
Here we are looking at a judge’s assessment of witnesses who gave evidence as to foreign law. Some of the witnesses were found to be less then helpful. (This case appears to have taken up several months of court time….
EXPERT WATCH 2: THE EXPERT WHO REPORTED WITHOUT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO HAND AND THEN WOULD NOT RECOGNISE HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE
Here we look at a case where an expert reported without having all the relevant evidence to hand. In fact he only saw the claimant’s witness statements a few days before the trial. This, added to other issues, led to…
EXPERT WATCH 1: THE DUTY TO STATE THE SOURCES OF THE EXPERT’S INFORMATION
This is the start of a series examining cases where expert evidence is considered by the courts. As matters stand there are already dozens of posts on this site where the conduct of experts has been considered (and often criticised)…
WHEN A PARTY RELIES ON “NON PART 35 COMPLIANT” EXPERT REPORTS: THIS IS HARDLY LIKELY TO CARRY MUCH WEIGHT…
The first question the lawyer must ask when being presented with a report for use in proceeding is – is this report CPR 35 compliant? If it is not then it may have little, if any value. There is a…
EXPERT’S REPORT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: ALL PARTIES AGREED IT WAS “FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED” AND COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: JUDGE STATES THAT EXPERT SHOULD CONSIDER REPAYING THE FEE
Here we are looking a judgment given last week where all the parties involved in a case agreed that an expert’s report was “fundamentally flawed”. Part of the report was based on a rejection of findings of fact that had…
IF A CLAIMANT ISSUES AND LITIGATES WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE CAPACITY – ARE THEY LIABLE FOR THE COSTS INCURRED? COURT OF APPEAL SCRUTINISES EXPERT EVIDENCE AND FINDS IT WANTING
Yesterday we looked at issues relating to the capacity of a solicitor’s client and their consequent liability to pay costs. Today we look at a case about inter partes costs. If a claimant brings proceedings but does not, in fact,…
EXPERT WITNESSES – VITAL PARTICIPANTS IN CIVIL JUSTICE: “SHOW YOUR WORKINGS” – SPEECH BY LORD JUSTICE BIRSS THAT I AM ENCOURAGING YOU TO READ
I am here encouraging lawyers and experts to read the speech of Lord Justice Birss’ speech to the Expert Witness Institute. It was the keynote speech to the Expert Witness Institute’s Annual Conference. I have extracted highlights. (The science teacher’s…
HOW IS A VERY, VERY LATE APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE GOING TO FARE? THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE DEFENDANT AREN’T GOOD…
We are considering here a very, very, late application by a defendant to call expert evidence. Unsurprisingly the application did not find favour with the court. The judge then went on to consider the consequences given that the claimant had…
IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITICISE AN EXPERT THIS MUCH YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING: HIGH COURT REJECTS EACH PARTY’S ATTACKS ON OPPONENT’S EXPERTS
We have seen plenty of cases where the courts have not been slow in their criticism of expert witnesses. Here we have a different situation where the judge was critical of the attacks, by each party, on the credibility of…
HOW FAR IS A TRIAL JUDGE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE VIEWS OF A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT? WELL – READ THIS FOR SOME TRENCHANT VIEWS…
When the parties jointly instruct an expert how far is the judge “bound” by the views that the expert reaches? This is an issue we are looking at for the second time within 6 days. We have an interesting consideration…
WHEN THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT REPORT IS OF “LITTLE OR NO” ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT: A CASE IN POINT
The courts encourages the use of jointly instructed experts However this does not mean that the case, or even key issues in the case, are necessarily determined by those experts. Here we have a case where the judge held that…
EXPERTS IN COURT: “TRESPASSING ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION” AND “SEEKING TO ADVOCATE” ON BEHALF OF PARTY: THIS RARELY ENDS WELL…
There is no shortage of posts on this blogs where judges are critical of expert witnesses. Today we look at another such case where the judge found the expert’s approach “concerning” and went on to state that the expert was…
EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE RISKS OF “ANCHORING”: THE EXPERT “GAVE THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ARGUE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE”
Today we are looking at a case where the judge had considerable reservations about expert evidence called on behalf of a claimant. Not all the problems that occurred were the fault of the expert. However she was the third expert…
THE RICS PRACTICE ALERT ON ACTING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN HOUSING DISREPAIR AND OTHER HIGH VOLUME CASES: OF INTEREST TO ALL EXPERTS (AND THOSE WHO INSTRUCT THEM)
The RICS has produced a Practice Alert aimed specifically at those acting as expert witnesses in housing disrepair and other high volume cases. It some ways the Alert is surprising in that it says nothing new, that is most of…
EXPERT REPORTS AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED IN THE COURTS AGAIN: LEADS TO A DOCTOR BEING ERASED FROM THE REGISTER OF DOCTORS
The judgment in Moodliar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 913 (Admin) provides a salutary reminder to medical experts that giving expert evidence is a highly significant task. Failures in the process can lead to erasure from the medical register,…
EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025
I am giving a webinar for the Steve Cornforth Consultance on the 14th May 2025. It is aimed at housing lawyers and aims to have a comprehensive look at the rules, guidance and cases on the use of experts in…
PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:
In H&P Advisory Limited v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Limited (formerly Randgold Resources Limited) [2025] EWHC 562 (Ch) Mr Simon Gleeson found that the experts for each party were of no assistance in assessing the value of the work done by…
AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH EXPERT WITNESSES: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2025: DEALS WITH SOME “INTERESTING” ISSUES: EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY
This webinar deals, among other things, with three cases where solicitors have been struck off the Roll because of their conduct with expert witnesses. In one of those cases the solicitor also went to prison. The Court of Appeal held…
EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED
In Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2025] EWHC 272 (KB) HHJ Bird (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered which expert should be accepted in the context of a case against the police. He preferred the expert with…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025
Expert evidence plays a critical, often decisive, role in clinical negligence litigation. An ability to assess expert evidence is a key part of the litigator’s role. This webinar looks at the rules and cases that govern the credibility of expert…
CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE – BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE
I am grateful to Professor Keith Rix for allowing me to use an article that appears in February’s Expert Healthcare Witness Matters*. This deals with the question of whether an expert can, or should, agree to act on a conditional…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025
This blog regularly features cases where there have been issues, sometimes major problems, with expert evidence. This webinar takes a close look at the factors that the courts take into account when considering which expert’s view should be accepted. It…
WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT
We have looked at the judgment in Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as Judge of the High Court) before, in the context of the failure of committal proceedings following an earlier finding…
AN EXPERT WHO “HAD NO REGARD TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION” AND “WHO WAS PREPARED MATERIALLY TO MISLEAD THE COURT”
In Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer made extremely trenchant findings about the conduct of an expert witness instructed on behalf of the claimants. There was no compliance with Rules or Guidance for…
EXPERTS AND THE COURTS: DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024: “WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL?”: SOME INTERESTING WEBINARS IN THE NEAR FUTURE
Issues relating to expert evidence have formed a large part of the material considered in this blog so far this year. The webinar on the 11th December reviews the key cases and their significance for practitioners and experts alike. Webinars…
THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT “ARGUMENTS” SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN
In Norman v N & CJ Horton Property [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) Master Clark found that proposed “expert evidence” was not evidence at all but simply opinions. The person preparing the report was not allowed to give expert evidence on…
EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT
The Court of Appeal decision in T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 1384 is an appeal in a family court case. It contains important observations in relation to attempts to adduce new evidence at the appeal stage. Equally…
CLAIM AGAINST ALLEGEDLY DISHONEST EXPERT NOT STRUCK OUT: THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL
In EUI Ltd (t/a Admiral) v Smith [2024] EWHC 2803 (KB) Mr Justice Griffiths refused an expert’s application to strike out the case against him. He upheld the decision of the Circuit Judge and stated that the issues should go…
WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN’T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING…
We have considered the dangers of attempting to use artificial intelligence in litigation before. The use of artificial intelligence in an expert report was considered b Schopf.S in the Surrogate’s Court, Saratoga County, in the “Matter of Weber”. “The mere…
AN EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE “CORRUPTED” BY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: “THERE SHOULD BE SOME INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS”
We are returning once again to the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB).We are also returning to the question of expert evidence. There…
BACK TO THE CASE OF WILSON: THIS TIME THE “CHERRY PICKING” EXPERT WHO VEERED INTO A PARTISAN APPROACH
We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) and staying with the theme of expert witnesses whose evidence was found wanting. (This…
You must be logged in to post a comment.