THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024
I was a more than a little shocked to read the judgment in Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 it is a case that shows that lawyers are still making…
WHEN EXPERTS KNOW EACH OTHER AND SPEAK AT THE SAME CONFERENCES: ATTACKS ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERTS WERE REJECTED
There are some interesting observations about expert witness evidence in the judgment in Biggadike v El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688 (KB) Firstly in relation to the attendance at clinical seminars (during the course of the trial). Secondly in relation to…
AN EXPERT WHO SHOULD LEARN THE RULES BEFORE REPORTING AGAIN: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
We are taking a short break from the detailed examination of issues relating to service of the claim form to look at another common issue on this blog – an expert that failed to comply with the rules. I am…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN EXAMPLE OF AN EXPERT BEING UNBALANCED (FROM 2015).
Looking back at previous posts there are, numerous, indeed hundreds, where the courts have considered the role of experts. The cases that appear on this blog tend to be where judges have found the experts wanting. It almost feels unfair…
UNCONTROVERTED EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO OVERRIDE THE UNQUESTIONED REPORT: GRIFFITHS -v- TUI LEADS TO CLAIMANTS BEING SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL
I am grateful to Jatinder Paul from Irwin Mitchell for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Humphreys in the Wrexham County Court. The report involves a personal injury case alleging negligence which led to food poisoning which…
CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERTS: USEFUL GUIDES AND HINTS
There are hundreds of posts on this blog about the role of experts in civil litigation. In many of those cases the experts have been cross-examined and this has not ended well – for them. I have already planned a…
EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2023: ESSENTIAL POINTS FOR PRACTITIONERS AND EXPERTS: WEBINAR 24th JANUARY 2024
Keen readers will note that already this week there have been two cases reported on this blog where the conduct or “expertise” of experts have been subject to judicial criticism. Issues relating to expert evidence in litigation have been a…
EXPERTS NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THE MATTERS THEY DID: ADMINISTRATIVE COURT DECISION
Another example of expert evidence going awry can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in Balachandra v The General Dental Council [2024] EWHC 18 . The experts in question were giving evidence in relation to matters that…
EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2023: WEBINAR 24TH JANUARY 2024: ESSENTIAL ISSUES FOR ALL LITIGATORS AND EXPERTS
Over the course of 2023 we saw many cases in which the conduct of experts and those who instruct them came under close scrutiny and criticism in the courts. I am presenting a webinar on the 24th January 2024 reviewing…
AN EXPERT SHOULD HAVE EXPERTISE IN THE ISSUE THEY ARE GIVING EVIDENCE ON: THEY CAN’T SIMPLY TEACH THEMSELVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CASE
There are some important observations on expert evidence in the judgment of Mrs Justice Bacon in Sycurio Ltd v PCI-Pal PLC & Anor [2023] EWHC 2161 (Pat). An expert must give evidence within the scope of their expertise. To assert…
FOUR INTERESTING POSTS ON EXPERTS: HOW TO CROSS-EXAMINE, HOW TO INSTRUCT, DON’T BE LATE AND – WHATEVER YOU DO – DON’T DO THIS
Expert evidence has been a regular feature on this blog. Here we are looking at four posts from June 2014 which give rise to issues that resonate today. Advice on cross-examining experts, consideration of instructing experts, an attempt to introduce…
BE CAREFUL WHEN INSTRUCTING AN EXPERT: TEST THEIR EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR CLIENTS COULD BE PROFOUND
We have looked at the decision in relation to costs in the case of ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Anor [2023] EWHC 986 (KB) in an earlier post. The decision on costs, and the primary judgment on…
“HE LACKED THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND JUSTIFY HIS CONCLUSION”: A CASE WHERE NO SPECIFIC RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON AN EXPERT’S EVIDENCE
In Eaton v Auto-Cycle Union Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2642 (KB) Mr Justice Turner was critical of the expert evidence called by the claimant. “Quite simply, he lacked the necessary expertise to substantiate and justify his conclusions. It…
WEBINAR ON CARE, AIDS & APPLIANCES CLAIMS AFTER MUYEPA -v- THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: 18th NOVEMBER 2022
I have already written three times about the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). I have not explored in detail the important observations in that judgment in relation to claiming, and presenting,…
EXPERTS SHOULD CONSTANTLY REMIND THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION THAT THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE LITIGANT’S “TEAM”: JUDGE CRITICAL OF PARTISAN APPROACH
We are, again, mining the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). This time in relation to the judge’s comments and findings in relation to the expert evidence, in particular the non-medical evidence…
JUDGE FINDS PROCESS BY WHICH EXPERT REPORT OBTAINED “SO FLAWED, AND THE MATERIAL ON WHICH IT IS BASED SO LIMITED AND CONJECTURAL THAT IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY WRONG FOR ME TO PLACE ANY WEIGHT ON IT WHATSOVER”
In de Renee v Galbraith-Marten [2022] EWFC 118 Mr Justice Mostyn commented on an expert report that one of the parties sought to introduce. The report had been obtained in breach of the rules. It did not comply with the…
EXPERT WITNESSES SHOULD KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND CAN PROPERLY CHANGE THEIR VIEW AS THE CASE PROGRESSES
In A Local Authority v AA & Anor [2022] EWHC 2321 (Fam) Mrs Justice Lieven rejected criticism of an expert witness who had changed their view throughout the course of the case. Experts must keep an open mind and it…
EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THE COURTS IN 2022 – REVIEW AND GUIDANCE: DON’T LET THESE PROBLEMS HAPPEN TO YOU: WEBINAR 14th DECEMBER 2022
As the two posts on this blog yesterday showed there appears to be a never ending problem with expert evidence. This year there have been over a dozen cases about expert evidence reported on this blog alone, all of them…
EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE DO NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF ANONYMITY: MATTERS OF FREE SPEECH ARE IN ISSUE
The previous post dealt with the judgment of HHJ Richard Clarke in Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106, in particular the critique of the expert evidence. In a subsequent judgment Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022]…
COURT CONSIDERS EVIDENCE OF EXPERT WHO “HAD NOT READ THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, NOT FULLY READ THE LITERATURE… AND HAD MIS-READ AND MISINTERPRETED THE RELEVANT RESEARCH”
A powerful critique of the conduct of an expert witness can be found in the judgment of HHJ Richard Clarke in Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106. A medical expert was found to have fallen considerably…
CLAIMANT COULD NOT OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE USE OF A LETTER FROM AN EXPERT: AN APPARENT BREACH OF THE INDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE
In Pickett v Balkind [2022] EWHC 2226 (TCC) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application for an injunction to prevent the defendant relying on the contents of a letter from the claimant’s expert. That…
APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”
In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence. The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…
NINE YEARS ON IX: 2022: EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT
In the final post of this series I have chosen a post from January 2022. There are many common themes on this blog: relief from sanctions; service of the claim form; Part 36; witness statements, among them. However it is…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: KNOWING WHERE IT CAN ALL GO WRONG – AND AVOIDING PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY OCCUR:WEBINAR ON EXPERTS AND FOR EXPERTS: 21st MARCH 2022
A number of recent cases have emphasised the importance of those who instruct experts, and experts themselves, being fully aware of the nature and scope of the duties of an expert. This webinar looks at cases where experts have gone…
EXPERTS GOING WRONG – AGAIN : THIS TIME IT HAS COST (SOMEONE) £225,000: THE WORK TURNS INTO DUST
It is rare for me to write about judgments from secondary sources. However the judgment of Senior Master Fontaine in Patricia Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited [2022] EWHC 479 (QB) is noted in two reliable sources and it is a case…
NO DUTY OF CARE OWED BY A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT (ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE): EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT BEING EXPERTS: MUCH TO READ HERE
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) is essential reading for anyone who instructs experts in litigation. It is also essential reading for experts. The judge dismissed a claim in negligence against a…
DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE PART 35 DUTY OWED TO THE COURT: JUDGE ISSUES REMINDER
The previous post looked at the rejection of allegations of fundamental dishonesty in Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB). That judgment also contains some observations in relation to several of the medical experts called on behalf of the…
EXPERT HAD A “FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR HIS DUTY TO THE COURT”: ORDERED TO PAY £50,500 WASTED COSTS
NB – THE COSTS ORDER AGAINST THE EXPERT IN THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. THE JUDGMENT ON APPEAL CAN BE FOUND HERE. The judgment of Recorder Hudson in Robinson -v- Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Dr Chris…
GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 2: THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL: AN EXPERT’S REPORT WITHOUT REASONING IS “ALL BUT WORTHLESS”
NB THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT – SEE THE DECISION HERE. This is the second post about the Court of Appeal decision in Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1442. Here we…
GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (1): JUDGES AND EXPERTS: THE COURT IS NOT A RUBBER STAMP
NB THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GRIFFITHS WAS OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT, SEE THE DISCUSSION HERE. This is the first of a series of posts that consider the Court of Appeal judgment in Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd…
QUESTIONS TO EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE THE TRIAL: THE WRITING MAY BE ON THE WALL FOR LATE CHALLENGES
For the second time in two days I am reporting on cases where judges made the point that issues relating to evidence should have been raised before trial. Yesterday Mr Justice Zacaroli held that issues in relation to disclosure should…
EXPERTS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: A REVIEW OF THE RULES AND CASES: HOW EXPERTS CAN AVOID HITTING THE NET
An earlier post looked at the decision of Mr Justice Mostyn in Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762. Part of that judgment dealt with the duties of experts to disclose an interest they have in the case. This…
EXPERT WITNESSES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DECISION TO ERASE DOCTOR FROM RECORD BECAUSE OF HIS CONDUCT AS AN EXPERT WITNESS
Every litigator and, particularly, every expert witness should have a very close read of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762. Although it is a decision in the administrative court it…
WHY AN EXPERT WITNESS MUST EXAMINE THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: WHY MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NORMALLY THE KEY
There are several short passages in the judgment of HHJ Baucher in Ali v The Home Office [2020] EW Misc 27 (CC) which emphasises the need for expert witnesses to consider the objective evidence before reporting. It also shows the…
A “LACK OF OBJECTIVITY” IN AN EXPERT’S APPROACH: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CAUSATION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
In Leach v North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 2914 (QB) HHJ Freedman (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) made some telling observations about the lack of objectivity of the defendant’s expert. THE CASE The claimant…
EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: THE TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT OVERTURN CONCLUSIONS OF A “UNCONTROVERTED” EXPERT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
NB THIS DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT IS CONSIDERED HERE. In Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the question of the approach of…
THE EXPERT THAT DOESN’T GIVE HIS SOURCES (EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA): A PRACTICE DEPRECATED BY THE COURT.
In Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC) Mrs Justice O’Farrell commented on the practice of one of the experts in the case. Failure to follow the basic guidance given in the…
PROVING THINGS 177: WHEN YOU ARE RELYING ON A MEDICAL EXPERT ON CAUSATION WHO “SHOOTS FROM THE HIP” (IT DOESN’T END WELL)
I have written many times about issues arising from expert witnesses. In clinical negligence cases the role of the expert witness is often paramount. The claimant, in particular, is almost wholly reliant on expert evidence in relation to causation. It…
AN EXPERT WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED
I am giving a webinar on the 29th June 2020 on the Perils and Pitfalls of Expert Evidence. I have not found that there is any shortage of material. That material is added to in the judgment of Mr Justice…
WEBINARS ON LAW, PROCEDURE AND DAMAGES: READ ALL ABOUT THEM…
Since lockdown has made giving live presentations impossible I have been involved in presenting a number of webinars. This would seem a good time to set them out. Those that have been given earlier this year are still available on…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PERILS AND THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 29th JUNE 2020
The problems that experts can cause in cases (often to the side that instructed them) have been extensively catalogued on this blog over the years. On the 29th June I am giving a webinar on the perils and pitfalls of…
![JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU AN EXPERT: "ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS AND NAKED USURPATION[S] OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN"](https://i0.wp.com/www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/calculator_count_statistics_1277492.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU AN EXPERT: “ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS AND NAKED USURPATION[S] OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN”
Last week the “Covid Repeats” posts on this blog highlighted a few (and just a few) of the cases where judges had been critical of the role of experts, or experts involved in cases has been problematic. That this remains…
COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS
The impartiality, or otherwise, of expert witness witnesses was in the news in June 2014. Since expert evidence has been a constant theme on this blog. This would seem an appropriate time to revisit a post about the cross-examination of…
COVID REPEATS 36: DEFENDANT’S EXPERT TOLD TO GET ON HIS BIKE: WHEN A PARTY “WISELY” PLACES NO RELIANCE ON THEIR OWN EXPERT IN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS
Today we are looking again at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in Sinclair -v- Joyner [2015] EWHC Civ 1800 (QB). Some important observations about the role of the expert and the conduct of the expert instructed by the defendant…
COVID REPEATS 35: EXPERTS: DECLARATIONS OF TRUTH SIGNED RECKLESSLY
Problems with experts are very similar across all jurisdictions. The case of Pabon, R v [2018] EWCA Crim 420 is an illuminating one. A decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division it shows the dangers when an expert does not comply…
COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
Today we are looking back at the case of Hirtenstein -v- Hill Dickinson LLP [2014] EWHC 2711 (Comm) contains many interesting lessons for those involved in professional negligence litigation in particular. Here I just want to concentrate upon two:…
COVID REPEATS 33: YOU’LL NEVER GET TYRED OF THIS: AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”:
This is “experts” week for our stroll back through various posts on this blog. In September 2017 barrister Brian McCluggage for sent me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which…
COVID REPEATS 32: EXPERTS: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES: THE EXPERT THAT DIDN’T BOUGH DOWN TO THE RULES…
This week, providing there are no major developments that draw us elsewhere, the repeats are going to be about cases relating to experts. Firstly we go back to 2014 the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Stagecoach Great Western Trains -v- Hind…
EXPERTS NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES: DEPLETES YOUR ENERGY: A HIGH COURT CASE
The “Covid Repeats” section of this blog next week will review cases relating to experts. Problems with experts remain a key issue in litigation. Primarily caused by the expert’s failure to follow the basic rules and court orders. Examples can…
THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION – THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT
In October last year I wrote about the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB). The claimant recorded her consultation with the defendant’s medical expert and was given permission to produce these in evidence. That case has…
You must be logged in to post a comment.