EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY ON AN QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION: SNEAKING EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE IS STRUCK OUT
We have seen several examples of litigants attempting to give “expert” evidence in their witness statements. This practice was considered by Master Matthews in Change Red Limited -v- Barclays Bank PLC [2016] EWHC 3489 (Ch). The Master was considering whether…
PROVING THINGS 48: VALVES, FLOODS, MODELS AND CAUSATION.
If ever there were an object lesson in the need to prove every element of an action it is the judgment of HH Judge McKenna (sitting as a High Court judge) in Oldcorn -v- Southern Water Services Ltd [2017] EWHC. The…
EXPERT WATCH II: ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK THE EVIDENCE IN
There are some examples of ingenious attempts to introduce expert evidence into cases. Mr Justice Arnold commented on this in his judgment in Teva UK Ltd -v- Gilead Sciences Inc [2017] EWHC 13 (Pat). A “factual” report from an expert is…
EXPERT WATCH: SOURCE OF INFORMATION CLARIFIED (AND OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE)
There are aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) that justify closer examination. In particular the source of information of the expert’s information was illustrative. It highlights the importance of examining…
PROVING THINGS 46: LATE THEORIES ADVANCED BY EXPERTS RARELY HELP
Some aspects of litigation are highly reliant upon experts. Medical causation is on of those areas. The issues between experts should be clarified in the joint statement. In Smith -v- Tesco PLC & Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2016]…
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS IN PATENT CASES: SHOULD BE SHORT AND FAIR
In his judgment today in Merck Sharp and Dhome Limited -v- Shionig & Co Limited [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat) Mr Justice Arnold made some observations about the cross-examination of expert witnesses. These related to experts in patent cases, they are…
THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)
The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for…
IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…
There have been many occasions on this blog where I have commented on expert evidence. The links below show many cases where experts have caused major problems (usually for the party instructing them). There are numerous reports of cases where…
THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: BEWARE YE THE PARTISAN EXPERT: "UNBALANCED AND HIGHLY MISLEADING"
Some types of litigation are heavily reliant upon expert evidence. Clinical negligence cases are often determined by the judge’s assessment of the experts involved. It is disturbing to see the matters raised in judgment today of His Honour Peter Hughes…
WHAT IS MEANT BY AN "INDEPENDENT" EXPERT? CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK III
In Hopkinson -v- Hickton [2016] EWCA Civ 1057 the Court of Appeal considered what was meant by an “independent” expert. KEY POINTS The fact that a valuer, appointed to value a property by the parties under the terms of a…
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAWYER AND EXPERT: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK II
We have already looked at the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21 in relation to costs budgeting. Here I want to isolate one aspect of that budgeting exercise – in relation to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK 1
In Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca -v- Xstrate Limited [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett refused an application to rely on an expert witness. The case was unusual, however the principles are universal. The questions were whether there was an…
ANOTHER EXPERT WITNESS GOES AWRY: PATENTLY A PROBLEM
It is easy for the non-technical reader to pass over judgments relating to patents. These often involve highly technical issues. However there is one aspect of the judgment in Thoratec Europe Limited -v- AIS GMBH Aachen Innovative Solutions [2016] EWHC…
WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE: A MASTERLY EXPOSITION
The judgment of Master Matthews in Darby Properties Ltd -v- Lloyds Bank Plc [2016] 2494 (Ch) contains an important consideration of the rules relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. In particular when is expert evidence “necessary”? “… although I…
JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF WHICH EXPERT IS PREFERRED
There is a short passage in the judgment in Barclays Bank PLC -v- Christie Owen & Davies Limited [2016] EWHC 2351 (Ch) which considers the appropriate approach of the court when considering expert evidence. “To consider simply whether to prefer…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN CAN A LAY WITNESS GIVE OPINION EVIDENCE?THE STATUTE, THE CASES & SOME GUIDANCE
I have written, many times, about the dangers of putting opinion evidence into witness statements. The attempts of witnesses to be experts, or to tell the judge what the outcome of the case should be, can lead to robust adverse…
CHALLENGING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE BY THE USE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PREQUEL
Last month I wrote about the decision of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1962 (QB). One of the many issues the judge considered in that case was the admissibility of expert evidence to…
AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)
In the Matter of F (a Minor) EWHC 2149 (Fam)Mr Justice Hayden had to consider whether an expert report should be admitted in a family case. The comments on the expert evidence are of general relevance. “The overall impression is…
REVISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 2: ON THE LAWYERS DRAFTING THE EXPERTS' REPORTS
The first post in this series on the judgments in Whitehouse -v- Jordan in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords looked at the point that, at the appeal stage, the courts were only concerned with whether they could…
DELAY AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: BALD ASSERTIONS IN AN EXPERT'S REPORT
The result in Gahir -v- Bansal [2016] EWHC 2041 (QB) (Sir David Eady) is perhaps surprising given the strength of the judge’s observations as to the defendant’s conduct. Despite major unjustified delay an application to set aside a default judgment…
ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT
The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation. In addition to…
PROVING THINGS 28: MAKE UNWARRANTED PERSONAL ATTACKS AND USE A "MUD-SLINGING" EXPERT: THAT ALWAYS ENDS WELL
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Scott -v- E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting & Civil Engineering Ltd [2016] 1949 (TCC) contains some surprising observations. It also contains important lessons in relation to “conspiracy” theories in litigation and the role of the…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 2: EXPERTS, OH EXPERTS.
This is the second in the series of posts on the judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages. Here we look…
EXPERTS:YOU'RE NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE FAMOUS: A DECISION NOT WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF A FAG PACKET
The judgment of Mr Justice Green in British American Tobacco (UK) Limited -v- Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 1169 is 1,000 paragraphs long. It covers many aspects of law and procedure. I want to concentrate upon one issue….
LEARNING HOW TO PROVE THINGS: A BASIC SKILL THAT NEEDS HONING
As part of the occasional series which jogs peoples memories about New Year’s resolutions for 2016 I am revisiting resolution number 6: “learn how to prove things”. A very basic skill in the litigator’s armoury, but one which is barely…
THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN LAWYERS & EXPERTS: A DIFFICULT ISSUE
In a week where there is a report of an application being made for a doctor to be committed for contempt* it is prudent to consider that difficult issue of the relationship between the lawyers in a case and the…
THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION TO ADJOURN CANNOT BE IGNORED
A post last week noted the decision of the Court of Appeal in TBO Investments Ltd -v- Mohun Smith EWCA Civ 403 where the court stated that an application under CPR 39.3 should have been allowed when a defendant failed…
PROVING THINGS 15: DAMAGES & EVIDENCE: GOING BACK TO COLLEGE
One harsh shock for many litigants occurs when they are asked to prove their damages at trial. We have looked several times when a litigant has come to grief at this stage, largely because there is no evidential support for…
EXPERT REPORTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: PART 35 APPLIES
In the judgment today in Khaled -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 857 (Admin) Mr Justice Garnham considered Part 35 of the CPR and the admissibility of expert reports in proceedings in the Administrative Court. “The…
IS THIS AN EXPERT REPORT I SEE BEFORE ME? I THINK NOT
In Al Nehayan -v- Kent [2016] EWHC 623 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies made observations upon “expert” evidence that had been placed before the court. There were major failures of form as well as of substance. The judgment contains an…
DISCLOSURE AND PREDICTIVE CODING: PYHRRO EXPLAINED FOR THE TYRO
There has been much written already in relation to the decision of Master Matthews in Pyrrho Investments Ltd -v- MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) [see the links below]. However I want to concentrate upon the fact that this…
PROVING THINGS 9: THE ROLE OF EXPERTS
Here I want to pick up on a few observations of Mr Justice Snowden in Grant -v-Ralls [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch) a case we looked at yesterday. That is the role of the experts. It is dangerous to defer the “proving”…
PROVING THINGS 8: DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THAT FAILURE TO WEAR A SEATBELT MADE A DIFFERENCE
The defendant bears the burden not only of proving contributory negligence but also establishing its causative relevance. The law in Syred -v- Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA [2016] EWHC 254 (QB) (Mr Justice Soole) was complex, however one key point…
THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN LITIGATION: SUPREME COURT GUIDANCE
In Kennedy -v- Cordia Services LLP [2016] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court made some telling observations relating to expert evidence. This was in the context of a Scottish case, however the observations are of general importance. THE CASE The Supreme Court…
PROVING THINGS 5: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND FAILING ON CAUSATION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abdel-Khalek -v- Qazi Ali [2016] EWCA Civ 80 demonstrates both the difficulties of compounding lay and “expert” evidence and how a case can fail on causation. KEY POINTS The burden was on…
EVIDENCE, DAMAGES AND A SOLICITOR'S GOODWILL
The Court of Appeal decision in Karim -v- Wemyss [2016] EWCA Civ 27 has already received some publicity, involving as it does litigation following the sale of a solicitor’s practice. However the decision also shows the dangers of not bringing…
COSTS AFTER A SPLIT TRIAL: PART 36; UNNECESSARY EXPERT REPORTS; PROPORTIONALITY AND USELESS BUNDLES: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE
The short judgment of Mr Justice Males in C&S Associates UK Limited -v- Enterprise Insurance Company PLC [2016] EWHC 67 (Comm) encapsulates many of the problems of contemporary litigation. “It is important that those litigating in this court are aware…
PERMISSION NOT GRANTED TO CALL EMPLOYMENT EXPERTS: THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
In Various Claimants -v- Sir Robert McAlpine [2016] EWHC 45 (QB) Mr Justice Supperstone and Master Leslie considered the rules and case law in relation to the need to call expert witnesses in detail. KEY POINTS The claimants were refused…
TEN NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FOR LITIGATORS IN 2016
Some resolutions to keep you prosperous and out of difficulties in 2016. (Happy New Year) 1. NEVER, EVER, GUESS ABOUT A LIMITATION PERIOD (OR TAKE A CLIENT’S WORD FOR IT) Litigators of all types must have a clear idea about…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2015: POETRY, CARPET BOMBING AND DISAPPEARING EXPERTS
We civil litigators cannot be left out of the, apparently universal, need for an annual review. The annual review last year was headed with the words “prolixity”, “sanctions” and creative writing. Here we look at poetry, carpet bombing and disappearing…
SOME WITNESSES MAY NOT BE GOOD HISTORIANS BUT GOOD HISTORIANS CANNOT BE WITNESSES
In Kimathi -v- Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2015]EWHC 3432 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart considered a number of issues relating to witness statements. Here we consider whether the evidence of historians is admissible. Other aspects of this case will be examined…
THAT DIFFICULT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN EXPERT WITNESS AND AN ADVOCATE
In AAW -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 673 (IAT) Upper Tribunal Judge Southern made some telling observations on the role of an expert. The judgment is of general interest in relation to the role…
IS AN EXPERT REALLY NECESSARY? TWO RECENT CASES
The determination of the courts to restrict the use of expert evidence can be seen by the fact that the text of CPR 35.1 appears under the heading “duty to restrict expert evidence”. The rule itself states “Expert evidence shall be…
WHEN AN EXPERT FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT THEY KNOW THE PARTIES
A recent high profile criminal case has identified the major problems that can arise when an expert called to give evidence has failed to disclose that they have had previous dealings with the parties. Here we look at how the…
LATE EXPERT EVIDENCE, DENTON AND WAVING A FINGER IN THE AIR
The decision of the Court of Appeal in O’Connor -v- The Pennine Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA 1244 will receive much attention for the important observations made as to evidence, proof and “res ipsa loquitur”. However here I want…
WHEN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE LAY AND EXPERT WITNESSES LIES IN SHREDS
The previous post in relation to Part 36 led me to examine the substantive judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Van Oord UK Limited -v- Allseas UK Limited [2015] EWHC 3074 (TCC). It contains as damning an assessment of witness…
COMMENT POSING AS CROSS-EXAMINATION: "INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER"
When does cross-examination turn to comment? That is a question all working advocates have to consider, both in relation to their own cross-examination of witnesses, and responding to their opponents. There are some important observations by Mr Justice McCloskey in…
DEFENDANT NOT ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSION AND DEBARRED FROM RELYING ON FURTHER EVIDENCE: PLEADINGS ARE STILL IMPORTANT
In Clark -v- Braintree Clinical Services Limited [2015] EWHC 3181 HH Judge Burrell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused a defendant’s application to resile from an admission. He also granted the claimant’s application to debar the defendant from…
WITNESS EVIDENCE & THE BURDEN OF PROOF: A CIVIL TRIAL IS NOT A SEARCH FOR THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH: FOOTBALLERS ON TRIAL
Anyone looking for a detailed consideration of the law relating to witness evidence and the burden of proof can find it in the judgment of His Honour Judge Butler (sitting as a High Court judge) in GB -v- Stoke City…
THE EXPERT WITNESS THAT TELLS THE JUDGE THE "FACTS": A REVIEW OF RECENT CASES
There have been a number of recent cases where judges have considered the effect of expert witnesses commenting on primary facts. The judiciary have traditionally, and rightly, guarded their role as primary fact finder. However this does not appear to…
You must be logged in to post a comment.