Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Expert evidence » Page 8
WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)

WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)

February 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There was report in the Scottish newspaper The Herald earlier this week about disciplinary proceedings being brought against a doctor who had prepared a “misleading and inaccurate” medical report. In essence the expert reported, as facts, matters that the interviewee…

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder refused the defendant’s application to declare inadmissible part of an expert report and a joint expert report.  It was held that the principles in Rogers -v- Hoyle are of general…

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) is available through a Linked In post provided by barrister Andrew Mckie. It provides a number of lessons for those collecting evidence. In a case where…

SHOULD A "RECKLESS" MEDICAL EXPERT GO TO JAIL? WATCH THE ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SHOULD A “RECKLESS” MEDICAL EXPERT GO TO JAIL? WATCH THE ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Last year I wrote about the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB). Among other things in that judgment it was found that a medical expert’s recklessness amounted to contempt of court.  The expert…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29:  EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE'S TERRITORY DON'T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29: EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE’S TERRITORY DON’T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL

February 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have seen several cases recently where judges have objected, in clear terms, to an expert trying to find “facts”. That is properly a matter for the trial judge.   It is worthwhile looking at the guidance and cases on this…

PROVING THINGS 139: WHEN THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER ITS ALL BEEN A BIT OF A CRUSH

PROVING THINGS 139: WHEN THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER ITS ALL BEEN A BIT OF A CRUSH

February 1, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

Most  of the cases looked at in this series are decisions in the High Court. However issues of witness credibility and accuracy are a constant issue throughout virtually every layer of court and tribunal. In Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018]…

LITIGATORS KEEP A CAREFUL LOOK OUT: ITS YOUR DUTY TO MONITOR YOUR EXPERT'S CONDUCT (OTHERWISE ITS YOUR CLIENT THAT SUFFERS)

LITIGATORS KEEP A CAREFUL LOOK OUT: ITS YOUR DUTY TO MONITOR YOUR EXPERT’S CONDUCT (OTHERWISE ITS YOUR CLIENT THAT SUFFERS)

January 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

One specific aspect of the judgment in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) that needs emphasising is the duty the case places on a litigant’s lawyers to monitor the conduct of an expert and…

INTRANSIGENT EXPERT'S APPROACH LEADS TO "SIGNIFICANT PART OF CLAIMANT'S CASE BEING STRUCK OUT": A CASE FOR EVERY EXPERT AND LITIGATOR TO READ - NOW

INTRANSIGENT EXPERT’S APPROACH LEADS TO “SIGNIFICANT PART OF CLAIMANT’S CASE BEING STRUCK OUT”: A CASE FOR EVERY EXPERT AND LITIGATOR TO READ – NOW

January 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) is one of the most robust I have seen in relation to expert evidence. An expert’s failure to properly engage…

EXPERTS IN THE FAMILY COURT: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED

EXPERTS IN THE FAMILY COURT: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED

January 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I usually look at cases in the family courts when there are judgments that may be of some interest to civil litigators.  The judgment  of Mr Justice Keehan in M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors [2018] EWHC 3734 (Fam) …

BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE:  EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU

BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE: EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU

January 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Brexit, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is a far less exciting case than the headline suggests, however it is the first  case I have seen about the impact of Brexit on civil procedure (albeit indirectly). In Canary Wharf (Bp4) T1 Ltd & Ors v European Medicines…

EXPERT WITNESS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE "BOMBASTIC BULLSHITTER"? A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE EXPERT IMPARTIALITY

EXPERT WITNESS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE “BOMBASTIC BULLSHITTER”? A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE EXPERT IMPARTIALITY

January 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Professor Penny Cooper for sending me a copy of the report she authored with Dr Michelle Mattison for the Expert Witness Institute – “Towards Expert Witness Independence and Impartiality”.  This post is just a snapshot, to…

THE WITNESS WHOSE STATEMENT WAS "SOMEWHAT FICTIONAL": EXCELLENT EXPERTS WHO ROSE ABOVE THE FRAY

THE WITNESS WHOSE STATEMENT WAS “SOMEWHAT FICTIONAL”: EXCELLENT EXPERTS WHO ROSE ABOVE THE FRAY

December 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

There are several aspects of the judgment in JAH v Burne & Ors [2018] EWHC 3461 (QB) that are of interest to civil litigators.  Firstly it is another example of a case where the claimant’s witness statement was not accepted (at…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF JUMPING THE GUN: JUDGES DO NOT PASSIVELY ACQUIRE AN ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF BUNDLES BY OSMOSIS

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF JUMPING THE GUN: JUDGES DO NOT PASSIVELY ACQUIRE AN ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF BUNDLES BY OSMOSIS

November 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Written advocacy

There is so much for litigators to learn from the judgment of Master Thornett in Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB) that I considered a series of blog posts.  There are a number of central…

GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS, STRAIGHT FROM THE BENCH: ONLY PUT YOUR HAT WHERE YOU CAN REACH IT: AVOID EXPERT-WITNESS-ITIS

GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS, STRAIGHT FROM THE BENCH: ONLY PUT YOUR HAT WHERE YOU CAN REACH IT: AVOID EXPERT-WITNESS-ITIS

November 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are several series on this blog which features judges giving advice to advocates. In his keynote address to the Bond Solon Experts conference Lord Justice McFarlane gives advice to experts.  As ever the aim of this post is to…

EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY: WHY RECENTLY CROSS-EXAMINED EXPERTS SHOULD NOT E-MAIL THE OTHER SIDE'S COUNSEL...

EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY: WHY RECENTLY CROSS-EXAMINED EXPERTS SHOULD NOT E-MAIL THE OTHER SIDE’S COUNSEL…

November 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In D (A child : parental alienation) [2018] EWFC B64 HHJ Clifford Bellamy had to deal with the unusual situation in which an expert witness e-mailed counsel who had cross-examined him. “I was surprised, therefore, to receive an email from Mr…

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT - AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT – AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

October 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Lord Justice Coulson used the judgment in Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2403 to remind (some) litigators of  some key principles in relation to appeals on findings of fact.   He emphasised that the Technology…

TRYING TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO A WITNESS STATEMENT: PEOPLE MIGHT NOTICE: DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT EXPERTS STRUCK OUT

TRYING TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO A WITNESS STATEMENT: PEOPLE MIGHT NOTICE: DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT EXPERTS STRUCK OUT

October 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There have been numerous cases in which parties have attempted to give expert evidence in witness statements.  Another example can be seen in the decision in New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky [2018] EWHC 2742 (Ch). An attempt to…

NEW WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED TO CASE MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IS THE ONLY SAFE OPTION

NEW WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED TO CASE MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IS THE ONLY SAFE OPTION

October 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In SJ Moore (Jeweller) Limited -v- Squibb Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2731 (QB) Denton principles were considered and applied when the defendant wanted to adduce new evidence.  What is notable  here is the fact that the defendant had the expert…

"RECKLESS EXPERTS": SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND

“RECKLESS EXPERTS”: SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND

October 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

The judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) was looked at earlier.  It made the point that “reckless” reporting by experts can lead to experts being in contempt of court.  This led me to…

SOLICITORS AND EXPERT WITNESSES CAN GO TO JAIL: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE VASTLY CHANGED MEDICAL REPORT

SOLICITORS AND EXPERT WITNESSES CAN GO TO JAIL: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE VASTLY CHANGED MEDICAL REPORT

October 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Committal proceedings, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham found a solicitor and a doctor in contempt of court.   The solicitor was imprisoned for 12 months, the doctor given a six month sentence,…

EXPERT EVIDENCE - SHOULD YOU FRET ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERT HAS QUOTED?  I DON'T LIKE MONDAYS BUT YOU CAN KEEP THE GUITAR PARTS

EXPERT EVIDENCE – SHOULD YOU FRET ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERT HAS QUOTED? I DON’T LIKE MONDAYS BUT YOU CAN KEEP THE GUITAR PARTS

October 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Moylett v Geldof & Anor [2018] EWHC 893 (Ch) Mr Justice Carr considered some aspects relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. Statements of others included in a report are not expert evidence, however the inclusion of those statements did…

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

September 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to  Graham Hain  for pointing out the decision of  the Upper Tribunal (Lands) Chamber in Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO) (RATING – procedure) [2018] UKUT 253 (LC). This specifically relates to experts in the Lands Chamber,…

AN EXPERT'S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

AN EXPERT’S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Charles Holland for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Meek in Endless Stretch -v- Newcastle County Council. A copy can be found in the link on this page.    This case is…

PROVING THINGS 125: THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING YOUR OWN EXPERT IN THE LOOP: ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF READING AN EXPERT'S NOTES

PROVING THINGS 125: THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING YOUR OWN EXPERT IN THE LOOP: ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF READING AN EXPERT’S NOTES

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Swift v Carpenter [2018] EWHC 2060 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert gave a lengthy judgment in a high value personal injury case.  One interesting aspect of that case is the problems caused by the defendant’s expert evidence on care.  An additional…

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

August 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert.  The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…

EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE

EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE

July 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is the second case today looking at observations made in cases this week in relation to the joint meeting of experts. In BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC) HH Honour Judge Stephen Davies stated…

EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE

EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE

July 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Curiously there are two cases today that deal with the role of lawyers and the joint report.  The first I will look at is  the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)….

YOU LOST AT TRIAL - YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND GO: THE JUDGMENT IS HAIR TODAY AND WILL NOT BE GONE TOMORROW...

YOU LOST AT TRIAL – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND GO: THE JUDGMENT IS HAIR TODAY AND WILL NOT BE GONE TOMORROW…

July 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Liqwd Inc & Anor v L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1845 (Pat) Mr Justice Birss refused a defendant’s application to “reopen the trial and decide one of the issues afresh” taking into account new evidence. “Many litigants, having…

PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : "IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY"

PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : “IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY”

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

 If you want to see an example of problematic witness statements, and even more problematic expert witnesses, then read the judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford DBE in Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2018] EWHC 1602 (TCC). …

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Proportionality

In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1514 the Court of Appeal considered a “rather obscure” argument that an error by the appellant’s expert should lead to damages being reconsidered.   “It would be quite wrong…

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT?  RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A "MEDICAL REPORT" WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A “MEDICAL REPORT” WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In a judgment given today at Leeds County Court His Honour Judge Gosnell held that a claimant, seeking damages for industrial deafness, breached the rules when issuing by not serving a medical report but serving an “AMR” report.  The judge,…

DAMAGES CLAIMED BUT NOT PLEADED:  REALLY STRANGE WITNESS STATEMENTS; PARTISAN EXPERTS: THE ICI CASE IS BACK IN COURT

DAMAGES CLAIMED BUT NOT PLEADED: REALLY STRANGE WITNESS STATEMENTS; PARTISAN EXPERTS: THE ICI CASE IS BACK IN COURT

June 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

If you are ever looking for an example of matters going awry in litigation then read the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in  Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC).  All the usual problematic issues…

PROVING THINGS 115: WHEN HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF MEETINGS VARY FROM THE TYPED VERSION (AND THERE IS MORE...)

PROVING THINGS 115: WHEN HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF MEETINGS VARY FROM THE TYPED VERSION (AND THERE IS MORE…)

June 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

For the second time in recent weeks I am looking at how a judge assesses evidence in a family case.  Again this shows issues of general importance and relevance in the relation of those responsible for gathering evidence in the…

PROVING THINGS 114:  A WITNESS OF FACT CANNOT GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS

PROVING THINGS 114: A WITNESS OF FACT CANNOT GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS

June 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are several elements worth looking at in the judgment in Wessely & Anor (Liquidators of Laishley Ltd) v White [2018] EWHC 1499 (Ch).  However it is a prime example of a simple failure to prove things. If the applicants had…

PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT  AND WHO ARE "NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION"

PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT AND WHO ARE “NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION”

June 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

 Family cases, however, often come up with interesting observations in relation to the judge’s role as a fact finder. Similarly much can be gained by looking at  the judge’s observations on experts. We see a critique of the process of…

THE NATURE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE AT ALL - AND OF NO HELP TO ME:  JUDGE NOT IMPRESSED BY "ATTACHMENT THEORY"

THE NATURE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE AT ALL – AND OF NO HELP TO ME: JUDGE NOT IMPRESSED BY “ATTACHMENT THEORY”

June 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

It is rare for the court to reject “expert” evidence placed before it on the grounds that it is not expert evidence at all. This is rarer still now that permission is normally required before expert evidence can be adduced.  It…

PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

June 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Summary judgment

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL SEE THE REPORT HERE  In Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 1345 (QB) Master Cook allowed a defendant’s application for summary judgment. It is a classic case of a…

PROVING THINGS 108: PROVING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE

PROVING THINGS 108: PROVING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE

June 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Avondale Exhibitions Ltd v Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1311 (QB) His Honour Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the issue of whether it was necessary to adduce expert evidence to…

PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL

PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL

May 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgment, given yesterday, in Bond -v- Tom Croft (Bolton) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1290 QB.  It contains an important observation about the burden of proof in establishing that…

EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS' CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS

EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment  of Mrs Justice Andrews today in Gee -v- Depuy International Ltd [2018] EWHC 1208. The judgment is 762 paragraphs long and will be widely read by…

PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT

PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court.  This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB)  “The opinion of a single…

PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)

PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am returning to the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB).  This time in the context of proving, or refuting, allegations of negligence.  There was a simple route by which the defendant could have…

PROVING THINGS 95: OH... WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES...

PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…

May 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018.  The post provides a link to the judgment itself.  The judgment is another example of a…

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY "WISHFUL THINKING": £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…

EXPERT WATCH: AN EXPERT WHO "SIGNALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS BASIC DUTIES AS AN EXPERT"

EXPERT WATCH: AN EXPERT WHO “SIGNALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS BASIC DUTIES AS AN EXPERT”

March 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Brilliant though it is the Secret Barrister’s book has not tempted me to write about criminal law. However it is always worthwhile keeping a weather eye on the behaviour and conduct of experts.   Problems with experts are very similar across…

EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME "AGENDAS"

EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”

February 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are several passages in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in  David John Saunders  -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) that highlight a common problem with joint reports.  That is the problematic “agenda”. A …

THE SHORTER TRIAL SCHEME: PROCEDURAL WRANGLING AND PROBLEMATIC EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT CAN'T BE BRUSHED ASIDE

THE SHORTER TRIAL SCHEME: PROCEDURAL WRANGLING AND PROBLEMATIC EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT CAN’T BE BRUSHED ASIDE

February 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Written advocacy

In the judgment today in L’Oréal Société Anonyme RN Ventures Ltd [2018] EWHC 173 (Pat) Mr Justice Henry Carr set out his concerns on aspects of the procedure and expert evidence before the court.  The judgment contains some lessons for litigators…

EXPERT REPORTS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED CONCURRENTLY: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN A CAR HIRE CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO A SKELETON ARGUMENT

EXPERT REPORTS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED CONCURRENTLY: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN A CAR HIRE CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO A SKELETON ARGUMENT

January 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

 The decision of District Judge Glen in Kansal -v- Tang (31st January 2017, County Court at Slough)  is available on the DWF website.  It says a lot about “expert” evidence about hire rates. In particular the judge’s comment that evidence…

"SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH": FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

January 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEW OF 2017 (III): EXPERTS: SNEAKINESS, DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS, ARROGANCE AND NO CONCEPT OF THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEW OF 2017 (III): EXPERTS: SNEAKINESS, DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS, ARROGANCE AND NO CONCEPT OF THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT

December 29, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Review

There have been plenty of interesting cases on experts this year. Here are a few select cases. ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE IN There have been a number of cases where parties have attempted to “disguise” expert evidence. Teva UK…

← Previous 1 … 7 8 9 … 11 Next →

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 88: ANOTHER CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PLEADINGS: “THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW THE CASE AGAINST THEM…”
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 87: A CLAIM CAN BE STRUCK OUT ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLEADED CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 64: LOOKING AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN EXPERT REPORTING BADLY
  • COST BITES 428 : IF THERE IS NO CHARGING CLAUSE IN THE WILL CAN THE SOLICITOR GET PAID?
  • COST BITES 427: WHEN A SOLICITOR ABANDONS AN ASSESSMENT: PERSONAL LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY COSTS FOLLOW

Top Posts

COST BITES 426: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK SHOULD PAY COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUING: "THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK IS DESIGNED TO BE DIFFERENT"
THIS CASE SHOULD BE HEARD IN MANCHESTER: ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CASE TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM LONDON
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE IN AN APPEAL BUNDLE? A JUDGMENT ON THAT VERY POINT:"DOCUMENTS GENUINELY REQUIRED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL"
A PARTY CANNOT ADVANCE ONE CASE IN ONE SET OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE OPPOSITE CASE IN ANOTHER: ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT LEADS TO A COUNTERCLAIM BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
COST BITES 427: WHEN A SOLICITOR ABANDONS AN ASSESSMENT: PERSONAL LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY COSTS FOLLOW

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • 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 Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
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
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.