Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Expert evidence
PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 2: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, CAUSATION, EVIDENCE  AND FAILURE TO WEAR A CYCLE HELMET (SOMETHING ABOUT PLEADINGS TOO)

PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 2: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, CAUSATION, EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO WEAR A CYCLE HELMET (SOMETHING ABOUT PLEADINGS TOO)

May 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Personal Injury, Webinar

In the previous post in this series I mentioned that there was a backlog. I didn’t anticipate that I would be looking at a case that was decided in 2009.  However the judgment has recently arrived on BAILLI and it…

THE COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPERT EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUE A TERM IN AN AGREEMENT: AN EXPERT CANNOT BE USED TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT

THE COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPERT EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUE A TERM IN AN AGREEMENT: AN EXPERT CANNOT BE USED TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT

May 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts

Is an expert needed to construe a contractual agreement.  Here we have a case where the Master was very much against the applicant who sought permission to rely on an expert.   An expert was not needed to report on market…

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE RISKS OF "ANCHORING": THE EXPERT "GAVE THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ARGUE THE CLAIMANT'S CASE"

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE RISKS OF “ANCHORING”: THE EXPERT “GAVE THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ARGUE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE”

May 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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 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)

May 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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

EXPERT REPORTS AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED IN THE COURTS AGAIN: LEADS TO A DOCTOR BEING ERASED FROM THE REGISTER OF DOCTORS

April 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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,…

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

In Sarah Jane Young v John Anthony Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177 the Court of Appeal sent out another reminder that there are difficulties in trial judges attempting to override the views of expert witnesses.       “… in the circumstances…

EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025

EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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…

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE "EXPERT EVIDENCE" FROM THE CLAIMANT'S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE...

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE “EXPERT EVIDENCE” FROM THE CLAIMANT’S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE…

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Witness statements

We are returning to the judgment of Jason Beer KC Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC and staying with the issue of “expert” evidence. This time looking at the attempt of…

PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT

PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts

In  Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC dismissed the claimant’s application that forensic accountants give evidence at trial.  The experts had basically agreed that there were issues of fact to…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS "APPALLING": ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS "TERRIFYING"

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS “APPALLING”: ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS “TERRIFYING”

April 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts

In LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 HHJ Kathryn Major (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) was severely critical of the medical evidence called by the local authority.  That part of the…

PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:

PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:

March 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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…

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors,  for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here.   It is a case…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

There is a consideration of the principles relating to the use of expert evidence in the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Cohen & Ors v Co-operative Group Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 526 (Ch).  The judge rejected the claimants’…

AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH EXPERT WITNESSES: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2025: DEALS WITH SOME "INTERESTING" ISSUES: EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY

AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH EXPERT WITNESSES: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2025: DEALS WITH SOME “INTERESTING” ISSUES: EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY

February 25, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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

EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED

February 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025

February 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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

CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE – BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

February 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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…

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN "INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION": A REPORT WAS "IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE"

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN “INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION”: A REPORT WAS “IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE”

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

In Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected the applicant’s application to rely on expert evidence.   The proposed expert report was to “uncertain” and, in any event, unlikely to assist…

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

January 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

In  JXX v Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley considered the – much debated and litigated – issue of whether there needs to be  breakdown of an expert’s fee when the expert is instructed through an agency.  The…

AN EXPERT WHO "HAD NO REGARD TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION" AND "WHO WAS PREPARED MATERIALLY TO MISLEAD THE COURT"

AN EXPERT WHO “HAD NO REGARD TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION” AND “WHO WAS PREPARED MATERIALLY TO MISLEAD THE COURT”

December 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Personal Injury

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

EXPERTS AND THE COURTS: DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024: “WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL?”: SOME INTERESTING WEBINARS IN THE NEAR FUTURE

December 9, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: FALSE EVIDENCE: A FALSE CV: "I AM ENTITLED TO REJECT THE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FACTUAL BASIS"

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: FALSE EVIDENCE: A FALSE CV: “I AM ENTITLED TO REJECT THE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FACTUAL BASIS”

December 5, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Amy Birchall of HF solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bird in Scully -v- Atherton (& others).  The judge found that the claimant (someone who had held a number of jobs…

THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT "ARGUMENTS" SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN

THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT “ARGUMENTS” SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN

November 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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…

COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL

COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL

November 26, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

Hot on the heels of publishing the previous post in relation to the judge’s refusal to order a breakdown of the agency fees involved in a medical report I received a copy of a case from Ben Millns of Kennedys. …

COST BITES 197: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: IT WAS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO ORDER A BREAKDOWN OF THE FEE

COST BITES 197: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: IT WAS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO ORDER A BREAKDOWN OF THE FEE

November 26, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

I am grateful to Brian Dempsey of BD Costs for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Iyer in the case of Craven -v- Henley, a copy of which is available here  Craven -v- Henley.  It is a decision…

EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT

EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT

November 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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

CLAIM AGAINST ALLEGEDLY DISHONEST EXPERT NOT STRUCK OUT: THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL

November 6, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Striking out

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...

WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN’T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING…

October 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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…

EXPERTS CAN BE ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION ON MATTERS OF FACT, EVEN WHEN THOSE FACTS ARE ULTIMATELY FOR THE COURT

EXPERTS CAN BE ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION ON MATTERS OF FACT, EVEN WHEN THOSE FACTS ARE ULTIMATELY FOR THE COURT

October 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

There is a short passage in the judgment of Master Davison in  The Owners of the “Christos Theo” v The Owners of the “Aliki” [2024] EWHC 2106 (Admlty) which deals with an issue rarely considered by the courts – how…

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"

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”

September 25, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts

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

BACK TO THE CASE OF WILSON: THIS TIME THE “CHERRY PICKING” EXPERT WHO VEERED INTO A PARTISAN APPROACH

September 24, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Personal Injury

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…

WHEN AN EXPERT HAS "LOST ALL INDEPENDENCE AND OBJECTIVITY" - AND ADMITS SO IN COURT

WHEN AN EXPERT HAS “LOST ALL INDEPENDENCE AND OBJECTIVITY” – AND ADMITS SO IN COURT

September 24, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Personal Injury

There are many interesting aspects of the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB). Here I want to concentrate upon the judgment relating to…

CLAIMANT'S (LATE) APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE DISMISSED:"LITIGATION NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED EFFICIENTLY AND AT PROPORTIONATE COST"

CLAIMANT’S (LATE) APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE DISMISSED:”LITIGATION NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED EFFICIENTLY AND AT PROPORTIONATE COST”

September 6, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

In IlliquidX Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2191 (Ch) Chief Master Shuman dismissed the claimant’s application to rely on expert evidence.  It was held that the application was made too late and, in any event, not…

THE COUNCIL MUST PAY THE COSTS OF ITS EXPERT'S CHANGE OF MIND: THE DUTY TO TEST THE STRENGTH OF THE CASE WITH AN EXPERT CONSIDERED

THE COUNCIL MUST PAY THE COSTS OF ITS EXPERT’S CHANGE OF MIND: THE DUTY TO TEST THE STRENGTH OF THE CASE WITH AN EXPERT CONSIDERED

September 5, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

There is an interesting consideration of the duties relating to the interplay between lawyer and expert in the judgment of Fordham J in Halton Borough Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and…

"IT IS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE REMIT OF AN EXPERT TO DECIDE WHICH WITNESSES OF FACT HE BELIEVES OR DISBELIEVES": DEFENDANT'S WITNESS DOES NOT FARE WELL

“IT IS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE REMIT OF AN EXPERT TO DECIDE WHICH WITNESSES OF FACT HE BELIEVES OR DISBELIEVES”: DEFENDANT’S WITNESS DOES NOT FARE WELL

September 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

We are returning to the  judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles in  Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB).  More accurately to the first instance decision which the defendant attempted (unsuccessfully)  to appeal.  This time in relation to…

VALUATION EXPERTS SHOULD SHOW THEIR CALCULATIONS: ESTIMATING A VALUE AND WORKING BACKWARDS TO JUSTIFY THAT DOES NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT

VALUATION EXPERTS SHOULD SHOW THEIR CALCULATIONS: ESTIMATING A VALUE AND WORKING BACKWARDS TO JUSTIFY THAT DOES NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT

August 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

In Sahota v Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)  HHJ Rawlings (sitting as a High Court Judge)was critical of an expert witness who, in essence, worked backwards in relation to a valuation.  The judge found that having come to…

IT IS "ESSENTIAL THAT JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO ENGAGE WITH COUNTERVAILING ARGUMENTS..."

IT IS “ESSENTIAL THAT JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO ENGAGE WITH COUNTERVAILING ARGUMENTS…”

July 31, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

There have been a number of cases recently where the courts have considered whether expert evidence should necessarily be accepted in full. In  M (A Child)(Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas), Re [2024] EWFC 209 HHJ Coffey held that the views of…

“THE EXTENT OF EVIDENCE… WENT FAR BEYOND THAT PERMITTED BY THE RULES IN RELATION TO EXPERT EVIDENCE”: COMMENTS FROM ANTOTHER JURISDICTION

July 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Education, Expert evidence, Experts

On the rare occasions we look at procedure in jurisdictions outside England and Wales it is often in relation to expert evidence.  Other jurisdictions have similar issues in relation to experts, particularly argumentative experts.  An example can be seen in…

THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024

THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024

July 23, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

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

WHEN EXPERTS KNOW EACH OTHER AND SPEAK AT THE SAME CONFERENCES: ATTACKS ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERTS WERE REJECTED

July 18, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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

AN EXPERT WHO SHOULD LEARN THE RULES BEFORE REPORTING AGAIN: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

July 2, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

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).

EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN EXAMPLE OF AN EXPERT BEING UNBALANCED (FROM 2015).

June 25, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL STATE WHY THE JUDGE SHOULD BE WARY OF RELYING ON SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

EXPERT EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL STATE WHY THE JUDGE SHOULD BE WARY OF RELYING ON SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

June 24, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

In D and A (Fact-Finding : Research Literature) [2024] EWCA Civ 663 the Court of Appeal set out a clear warning about the dangers of trial judges analysing research literature in detail. The literature should be read through the prism…

WHEN THE JUDGE PREFERS ONE EXPERT WITNESS OVER ANOTHER: A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE EXAMPLE

WHEN THE JUDGE PREFERS ONE EXPERT WITNESS OVER ANOTHER: A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE EXAMPLE

June 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts

In  Woods v Doncaster And Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 1432 (KB) Mrs Justice Lambert preferred the claimant’s expert evidence to that that of the defendant. This was not because either expert was unduly partisan. Rather it…

APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS JUDGE'S REFUSAL TO RELY ON OWN EXPERT WHEN HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: THE "STAGGERED APPROACH" IS IMPORTANT

APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO RELY ON OWN EXPERT WHEN HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: THE “STAGGERED APPROACH” IS IMPORTANT

June 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

In Seneschall v Trisant Foods Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1380 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson overturned a decision whereby a party was refused permission to rely on their own expert report.  The judgment is important because it emphasises the…

UNCONTROVERTED EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO OVERRIDE THE UNQUESTIONED REPORT: GRIFFITHS -v- TUI LEADS TO CLAIMANTS BEING SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL

UNCONTROVERTED EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO OVERRIDE THE UNQUESTIONED REPORT: GRIFFITHS -v- TUI LEADS TO CLAIMANTS BEING SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL

June 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Personal Injury

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…

EXPERT EVIDENCE, ADJOURNMENTS, CAPACITY AND APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT FOR CONTEMPT: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION AT FIRST INSTANCE

May 24, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Committal proceedings, Expert evidence, Experts

In Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 53 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of expert evidence in relation to capacity, in the context of applications for contempt of court.  It was held that…

THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT

THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT

May 23, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts

In  Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC) Mr Simon Lofthouse K.C., sitting as a High Court Judge, considered the issues that arose when a party had tried to influence…

1 2 … 9 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2024. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 35.1K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 10: THE DUTIES ON A PARTY PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DECEIT
  • PARTS OF A SOLICITORS’ WITNESS STATEMENT ARE STRUCK OUT: A REMINDER – A WITNESS STATEMENT IS A PLACE FOR FACTS, NOT OPINION, LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 3: A SOLICITOR INJURED AT WORK FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY: A DOOR IS NOT WORK EQUIPMENT
  • ANOTHER (YES ANOTHER) CASE OF FAKE AUTHORITIES BEING CITED TO THE COURT: APPEAL STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • THE DEFENDANT’S DELAY LEADS TO COURT OF APPEAL REFUSING TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PROMPT

Top Posts & Pages

  • ANOTHER (YES ANOTHER) CASE OF FAKE AUTHORITIES BEING CITED TO THE COURT: APPEAL STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 3: A SOLICITOR INJURED AT WORK FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY: A DOOR IS NOT WORK EQUIPMENT
  • PARTS OF A SOLICITORS' WITNESS STATEMENT ARE STRUCK OUT: A REMINDER - A WITNESS STATEMENT IS A PLACE FOR FACTS, NOT OPINION, LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE
  • THE DEFENDANT'S DELAY LEADS TO COURT OF APPEAL REFUSING TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PROMPT
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 10: THE DUTIES ON A PARTY PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DECEIT

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin

 

Loading Comments...