COST BITES 153: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE BREAKDOWN OF MEDICAL REPORT FEES ONGOING SAGA: THE INVOICE SHOULD PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN
I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for providing me with a copy of the judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in CXR -v- Dome Holdings Limited, a copy of the judgment is available here CXR v Dome…
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…
IS A PARTY ENTITLED TO SEE THEIR OPPONENT’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH AN EXPERT LEADING UP TO THE JOINT MEETING? AN ISSUE THAT IS IMPORTANT – BUT UNDECIDED
In Frasers Group plc v Saxo Bank AS & Anor [2024] EWHC 188 (Comm) HHJ Pelling KC considered issues relating to whether a party’s correspondence with their expert leading up to the joint meeting of experts should be disclosed. The…
A COURT CANNOT SIMPLY IGNORE AN UNCHALLENGED EXPERT REPORT: DOG SAVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The significance of unchallenged expert evidence at court was considered by the Administrative Court in Fitzgerald v CPS [2024] EWHC 869 (Admin). Although this is a criminal case it considers the authorities in civil actions and the central point that…
PROVING THINGS 237: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE ITS CASE, FAILS TO PROVE IT HAD SUFFERED DAMAGES HAD IT SUCCEEDED (SOMETHING ABOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE TOO)
In Hamsard One Thousand And Forty-Three Ltd v AE Insurance Brokers Ltd [2024] EWHC 262 (Comm) the claimant failed to establish its case. The judgment shows many issues with the claimant’s evidence, in particular the problems that flowed from issues…
CHANGES TO THE FIXED COSTS RULES 2: 20 PAGES IN AN EXPERT’S REPORT DOES NOT MEAN 20 PAGES
Another change being introduced on the 6th April 2024 is a change (or possibly clarification) in relation to to the number of pages in an expert report in the Intermediate Track. The substantive report is still limited to 20 pages….
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…
“AN EXPERT WITNESS IS NOT HELPING THE COURT BY TRYING TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS”: JUDGE FINDS EXPERT “UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNACCEPTABLE”
In LCC v V & B [2023] EWFC 268 HHJ Booth commented on one of the expert witnesses. He found that the evidence given involved conjecture. The criticism of the expert is robust. “An expert witness is not helping…
MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE: LOOKING BACK TO THE CASE OF THE YEAR 2019
Yesterday I noticed that a post I had written in 2019 was suddenly gaining a lot of readers. I suspect that this was due to the power of television. Not that the blog was being advertised, but that the series…
GRIFFITHS -v- TUI: SUPREME COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT: THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR: POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THE EXPERT
In a judgment today TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal. It is an important decision on procedural fairness. In particular the duty of a…
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…
DECISION TO DISMISS CLAIM BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE UPHELD ON APPEAL:
We are looking at the second part of the decision in Doyle v HDI Global Specialty SE [2023] EWHC 2722 (KB). The post yesterday looked at the decision in Doyle. Here we look at the judgment in Rowe, the other case…
LITIGATORS: IF YOU DON’T PAY YOUR EXPERTS AND THEY ARE NOT COMING TO TRIAL, DON’T BE SURPRISED IF YOUR ACTION FAILS
The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Doyle v HDI Global Specialty SE [2023] EWHC 2722 (KB) shows a surprising set of facts when an expert wrote directly to the court. The expert made it clear that he was not…
CLAIMANTS NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT ASSIST THE COURT IN ITS TASK (WITH A FEW OTHER REASONS)
In Wambura & Ors v Barrick TZ Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) Master Stevens rejected the claimants’ application to call an expert. The judge contains a detailed consideration of the law and authorities relating to the court’s discretion…
PARTY NOT PERMITTED TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM OTHER CASES AS HEARSAY EVIDENCE
One of the issues decided by Mr Justice Mellor in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2023] EWHC 2408 (Ch) related to the attempts by a party (COPA) to adduce expert evidence from other trials by way of hearsay evidence…
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…
PROVING THINGS 232: CAR FIRES AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHY EXPERTS SHOULD MIND THEIR LANGUAGE: A MOVE FROM “MUST” TO “MORE THAN PROBABLE” REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Nash v Volskwagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd [2023] EWHC 2326 (KB) contains important observations in relation to the law and evidence relating to causation. However I want to look at the judge’s consideration…
COST BITES 98: THE SIMILARITIES IN MEDICAL REPORTS SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE COSTS OF REPORTS
We are returning again to HD v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 2118 (SCCO) Costs Judge James considered the sums that should be allowed in relation to the claimants’ medical reports. This involved a close examination of the reports…
WHEN THE PARTIES COULD NOT AGREE WHO THE JOINT EXPERT SHOULD BE: FAILURE TO ENGAGE COST THE CLAIMANT
I cannot remember many judgments where the sole issue has been who the jointly instructed expert should be. However we have such a case in the judgment of Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a High Court judge) in Gheewalla v…