EXPERT WATCH 71: “I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE”: THE EXPERT WAS “ADVOCATING” AND “HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL”
We have seen that judge jealously (and rightly) guard against experts trespassing into the judicial role of fact finding. They are also suspicious of experts that take the role of advocates rather than independent experts. We see both of these…
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (4): EXPERTS AND THE USE OF AI: A LOT OF DANGER AREAS HERE: 20 KEY POINTS
Here we consider the risks that occur when experts use AI when they prepare a report or give evidence. We have seen several examples on this blog of evidence going awry. Here we draw upon guidance from previous posts, but…
EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS’ FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT…)
This blog has considered, many times, the (almost universal) failure of expert reports to comply with CPR PD 35.2 – that is the mandatory duty of an expert to consider whether there is a range of opinions in the matters…
EXPERT WATCH 69: “THE APPROACH OF BOTH EXPERTS IS WRONG” : WHEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF $170 MILLION… THE JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE TO SIMPLY PICK A SIDE..
In this case the judge was categoric in his view that the approach of the experts from both sides was wrong. There was a major difference between the experts – just under $170 million. In these circumstances the judge is…
EXPERT WATCH 68: THE MISUSE OF AI: “CREATE ME AN EXCEPTIONAL EXPERT WITNESS REPORT”: SHOW HOW MY CLIENT “IS 0% AT FAULT”: THIS WITNESS HAD A FEW PROBLEMS…
“What happens in America eventually happens over here” is a well known maxim. It is for that reason we are looking at a case about expert evidence and the use of artificial intelligence from the United States. (To be frank…
EXPERT WATCH 67: LITIGANTS NOT ALLOWED TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF AN EXPERT WHOSE EVIDENCE ON SOME ISSUES WAS “LARGELY UNHELPFUL”
It is rare to be able to see a costs decision on the recoverability of the costs of expert evidence. We have such a case here where the Competition Appeal Tribunal considered whether to allow a successful party to recover…
EXPERT WATCH 66: RED FLAGS AND EXPERTS (1) :THE DUTY TO CONSIDER THE RANGE OF OPINIONS: OFTEN “HONOURED IN THE BREACH”; OFTEN FATAL TO A PARTY’S CASE
This short series is looking at how you can spot “red flags” when looking at an expert report. There are often aspects of reports that “don’t fare well” when put under scrutiny at trial. “His response was that he usually…
EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY “WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT” TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
This judgment is critical of the way in which an expert report was prepared. The problems were manifold in relation to the way in which the information was obtained, the way it was presented and the failure to consider primary…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN A DOCTOR PROVIDES A NOTE ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF A WITNESS: WHAT THE COURT REQUIRES
The issue of medical evidence to support a claim that a witness cannot attend trial, or requires some dispensation, have been some recurrent issues in litigation over the years. Many problems come from the medical evidence in support failing to…
EXPERT WATCH 63: WHEN A DOCTOR WRITES TO THE COURT AND THE JUDGE FINDS THE INFORMATION “UNRELIABLE”
There have been a number of cases where the courts have considered letters, or less formal “reports”, provided by doctors to support elements of a litigant’s case, usually in relation to an application for adjournment or procedural issue. There was…
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…
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. …
EXPERT WATCH 60: THE JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPERTS IN THE DIESEL EMISSIONS CASE: AN EXHAUSTING TRIAL?
We are looking here at a major case where the claimants were heavily reliant on expert evidence. They way in which the judge viewed the experts was crucial. This was not a case where the judge found fault with the…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: EXPERT WITNESSES HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME MATERIAL: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
The post earlier this morning set out the judge’s reservations about the nature of the information given to the claimant’s experts. In particular the failure to give the sources of their information. In fact the requirements go further than that. …
EXPERT WATCH 59: THE JUDGE IS CONCERNED THAT THE EXPERTS’ SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WERE NOT FULLY DISCLOSED: THIS HAS CONSEQUENCES…
There are a large number of cases where the courts have stressed that experts must state clearly what the source of their information is. In this case the judge expressed concerns that the claimant’s experts had obtained information from the…
EXPERT WATCH 57: JUDGE DECIDES THAT AN EXPERT, THAT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DUTIES TO THE COURT, SHOULD BE NAMED; “HE HAD A CHOICE TO INVOLVE HIMSELF IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TO BE PAID FOR DOING SO…”
Here we are looking at a decision related to the case we looked at yesterday relating to a medical expert in a family case. The judge gave a decision on whether an expert, who she found had failed in their…
EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
One of the fascinating things about procedure is how the same principles apply across a whole range of cases. This is particularly the case with issues relating to evidence, particularly expert evidence. Earlier we looked at expert evidence in relation…
EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
It is never helpful to a party’s case when a judge comes to the conclusion that the expert they have instructed is partisan. We have an example of this in this extremely high value case. There is interesting commentary on…
EXPERT WATCH 53 (THAT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAIN): THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS MADE MISTAKES AND THEN “GAVE AN IMPRESSION OF LOFTINESS” : THE JUDGE FELT UNABLE TO RELY ON THEIR CONCLUSIONS
Here we have an example of a judge clearly rejecting the expert evidence adduced on behalf of a defendant and giving clear grounds for the criticism of them. This was in the context of a case where the defendant had…
EXPERT WATCH 52: A REMINDER THAT THE JUDGE REMAINS THE SOLE FINDER OF FACT: (HOWEVER THIS A CASE WHERE THE JUDGE IS HIGHLY COMPLIMENTARY ABOUT SOME OF THE EXPERTS)
Here we look at the judge’s comments on expert evidence arising from a complex case in the Commercial Court. The judgment provides a reminder that experts should not be instructed to comment on matters of fact which are the sole…
EXPERT WATCH 51: THE EXPERT VALUERS SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO THIS EXERCISE “BLIND” – THEIR CREDIBILITY WOULD BE “MUCH IMPROVED”
In this case the judge expressly sets out a method of instructing the experts which would have been of more assistance to the court. In essence that the valuation experts should have been instructed, initially, without any knowledge of the…
EXPERT WATCH 50: THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN HIS TRUE OPINIONS EARLIER – NOT WAITED UNTIL CROSS-EXAMINATION
Experts faced with evidence that appears to contradict their earlier views often face a dilemma. In particular they need to consider whether their earlier conclusions remain valid. We have an example here where the judge was critical of the expert’s…
EXPERT WATCH 49: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “UNUSUAL” AT AN INTERLOCUTORY HEARING: “THIS MIXTURE OF OF SUBMISSIONS AND OPINION WAS NOT CPR 35 COMPLIANT EXPERT EVIDENCE”
Here we look at part of a judgment that dealt with expert evidence. The Master was clear that a party could not rely on expert evidence without permission. The use of such evidence is “unusual” in an interlocutory application. Further…
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…
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”…
EXPERT WATCH 48: HOW AN EXPERT WITNESS CAN LOSE CREDIBILITY AT TRIAL (IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE – BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE UNIVERSAL…)
Some areas of litigation rely heavily on expert evidence. Clinical negligence is often one of those areas. It is always interesting to read judicial views when a matter reaches trial. Here was have a judgment where the judge considered aspects…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
There is no shortage of posts on this blog where judges have been critical of expert witnesses (and sometimes those who instruct them). This webinar examines how courts assess and evaluate expert evidence in personal injury litigation, with a particular…
EXPERT WATCH 47: AN EXPERT CANNOT OMIT MATTERS FROM THEIR REPORT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY COULD EXPLAIN THEM WHEN QUESTIONED: “THIS BELIED A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE OBLIGATIONS UPON A CPR COMPLIANT REPORT”
Here we have a very short post on a very significant matter. That is the circumstances in which an expert can miss out the limitations of the data in their report on the basis that they could explain this when…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
When looking at previous posts we are looking for issues that remain relevant today. This case, about the conduct of experts and their interaction with lawyers, remains highly pertinent. The judge held that the breaches were so severe that the…
PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
No sooner was the (metaphorical) ink dry on the previous post about loss of earnings when I received a useful case from David Platt KC. It is a judgment that contains much of interest to litigators (that we will return…
EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
The previous post on costs and mediation led to me to look at the initial judgment on liability. This is because the court considered an argument that the situation with the claimant’s expert was so poor as to warrant indemnity…
EXPERT WATCH 42: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE – BUT A SIMPLE STEP UP FROM “NUMBER CRUNCHING” : ALSO OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Here we have a case where the judge found evidence provided by experts to be of “assistance” but where he was clear in his view that the information put forward was not expert evidence. The evidence was “simply a kind…
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…
EXPERT WATCH 40: THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED WITNESS: “THE DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO APPLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND TO FIND THE FACTS HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE…”
This is a case where the judge did not accept the views of a jointly instructed expert as to the authenticity of a document that was central to the case. The expert did not have access to all the relevant…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS WITH EXPERT EVIDENCE: WEBINAR 20th MARCH 2026: THE EXPERTS REPORT WAS “ALMOST WORSE THAN USELESS…”
We have seen some graphic examples in the past few weeks of a court robustly rejecting expert evidence adduced on behalf of a claimant. This webinar examines why expert evidence is not accepted, limited, or even wholly rejected at trial….
EXPERT WATCH 39: BOTH EXPERTS “ACTED AS SURROGATE ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF THEIR INSTRUCTING PARTY”: MORE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT…
We have another High Court decision where the judge was highly critical of the approach of each expert. The judge found that each took on the role of advocate rather than expert. The criticisms are stark “they were similar in…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE COURT OF APPEAL ON THE CREDIBILITY OF AN EXPERT WHO HAD HIDDEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN A COLLEAGUE OF THE DEFENDANT (FEBRUARY 2017)
Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of witness credibility head on. An expert giving evidence for the defendant in a clinical negligence case failed to disclose the fact that he and the…
EXPERT WATCH 38: AN EXPERT HAD NOT BREACHED THEIR DUTY BY ACCEPTING LIMITED INSTRUCTIONS: BUT WHEN SHOULD AN EXPERT REFUSE INSTRUCTIONS?
Here we are considering some important observations in relation to the duties of an expert who is given limited instructions. The judge considered whether this involved a breach of the expert’s duty to the court. On the facts of this…
EXPERT WATCH 37: THE COURT SHOULD MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT FIRST AND NOT ABDICATE THIS TASK TO AN EXPERT: A FIRST INSTANCE DECISION WITH A “FUNDAMENTAL FLAW”
We are looking at a family law case which considers several significant aspects of expert evidence. Firstly it makes clear that it is not for an expert to make findings of fact. Further a judge cannot simply abdicate they key…
EXPERT WATCH 36: THE JUDGE FINDS THAT EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “LITERALLY UNBELIEVABLE” (AND IT GETS WORSE…) “I MEAN, IT IS DISHONEST, FULL STOP”
We are used to seeing judicial criticism of experts on this site. We have an example here of a claimant’s case coming to grief because the judge did not accept her evidence or the evidence of the two experts called…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: “EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”: FEBRUARY 2018
There have been several major issues about the way in which the joint meetings of experts are conducted. This includes the problems that occur when the parties cannot even agree on an agenda for the meeting. This post looked at…
EXPERT WATCH 34: THE COURT REFUSES TO REPLACE A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BUT ALLOWS SOME OF THE PARTIES TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT
When it is appropriate for a court to replace a jointly instructed expert? That issue was considered in this case. The judge rejected the allegations made about the jointly instructed expert, however given that expert evidence was central to the…
EXPERT WATCH 33: WHEN AN AN EXPERT RELIES ON THE FINDINGS OF A PREVIOUS EXPERT: THIS CAN LEAD TO DIFFICULTIES…
I am grateful to Jim Shepphard solicitor for sending me a copy of this report part of which relates to to the assessment of expert evidence. The claimant’s expert had a problem because their report was based, in part, on…
EXPERT WATCH 32: A REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW AS TO THE INDEPENDENCE (OR OTHERWISE) OF EXPERT WITNESSES
We are looking again at a case looked at yesterday. This is because the judgment contained a useful summary of many leading cases relating to the question of expert bias, or apparent bias. “It is always desirable that an expert…
EXPERT WATCH 31: A PARTY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO RELY ON THE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE WHO WAS CONFLICTED: THE EXPERT CANNOT “MARK THEIR OWN HOMEWORK”
This is an interesting example of a judge refusing a party permission to rely on an expert witness because they were conflicted. They had been involved in the issues previously and could not give independent or disinterested advice. “Ms…
EXPERT WATCH 30 : WHEN THE EXPERTS REPORT ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS: IT WAS APPARENT THAT SOMETHING HADE WRONG WITH THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE
Here we have problems with the way in which handwriting experts were instructed. The difficulty being that different experts were given different documents. This led to difficulties at trial. However, ultimately, it did not favour the defendants. The judge was…
EXPERT WATCH 29: THE JUDGE IS WARY OF A CLINICAL EXPERT WHO IS “HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF LITIGATION”
There have been a number of cases in recent years where judges have been wary (sometimes highly sceptical) of expert witnesses who make their living solely from being involved in litigation. We have another example here. There is no indication…
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 6: EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025: CASES ON THIS BLOG
I am surprised (but perhaps shouldn’t be) at the sheer number of cases involving experts that the blog has covered this year. In July I started the “Expert Watch” series to focus on cases about the conduct of experts and…
EXPERT WATCH 27 : WHAT DOES THE COURT DO WHEN AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION HAS BEEN COVERTLY RECORDED? “I HOPE HE WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN…”
Covert recordings, of one type or another, are featuring heavily on this blog today. Here we consider a case where a claimant secretly recorded her examination by an expert instructed by the defendant. The claimant then applied to admit the…
PART 35 QUESTIONS AND AGENDAS FOR EXPERT MEETINGS – A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS AND EXPERTS: WEBINAR 3rd DECEMBER 2025
The conduct of experts, and those who instruct them, has featured widely on this blog this year. This webinar looks at two specific issues in relation to expert evidence (i) questions to experts; (ii) the drafting of agendas for expert…
You must be logged in to post a comment.