EXPERTS NOT REALLY NECESSARY WHEN A JUDGE LOOKS AT BALLET SHOES: EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EN POINTE
Instructing experts in circumstances where they are not necessary, or their evidence is not admissible, is a common theme in litigation. This issue was considered by Mr David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Rothy’s Inc v…
JUDGE REFUSES TO RECONSIDER CRITICISMS OF EXPERT WITNESS IN A JUDGMENT: EXPERT DUTIES CANNOT BE DELEGATED
In Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics UK Ltd (t\a MYLAN) [2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat) Mr Justice Marcus Smith made some observations about the role of the expert witness and the importance of their evidence being criticised in…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND TOO COSTLY
It must be disheartening for parties who get to trial to find that the judge does not think that the “experts” they have instructed (at great cost) are not regarded by the courts as experts at all. This is exactly…
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…
WHEN A LITIGANT SEEKS TO DEFEND A CLAIM AT ALL COSTS: A HIGHWAY TO HELL: WHY, IN LITIGATION, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES
The judgment of HHJ Mithani QC in Colar v Highways England Company Ltd [2019] EW Misc 17 (CC) has recently arrived on BAILLI. It provides an illustration of the danger of defending a claim “at all costs”. The judge was…
CLAIMANT IN LOW-VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CASE NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON EXPERT REPORTS WHEN PROTOCOL NOT COMPLIED WITH: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
In Mason -v- Laing (Bradford County Court 20th January 2020 Mason v Laing) HHJ Gosnell held that a claimant that failed to comply with the requirements as to instructing experts prior to a Stage 3 hearing could not rely on…
DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT OF THE CASE LED TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING PAID: MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF “NOT ACTING IN GOOD” FAITH: A SPECULATIVE & WEAK CASE: EXPERTS WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This is the third (but not the last) look at the judgment on costs in Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 2387. The judge held that the defendant’s conduct of the case was such that…
GUIDANCE ON GIVING REMOTE EVIDENCE: ESSENTIAL READING FROM THE ACADEMY OF EXPERTS
The Academy of Experts have written Guidance on Giving Remote Evidence. Although this is aimed at expert witnesses there is much that anyone involved in litigation can take away from this. SELECTED EXTRACTS There is much that is useful. …
THE TREATMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: ANOTHER CASE WHERE A JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF A DEFENDANT IS OVERTURNED
There has been much online discussion about the impact that the decision in Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) will have in relation to food poisoning cases and more generally. That case related specifically to the treatment of…
EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: THE TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT OVERTURN CONCLUSIONS OF A “UNCONTROVERTED” EXPERT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the question of the approach of the trial judge to “uncontroverted” expert evidence. He overturned the decision of the trial judge in favour of the…
WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE BECOMES REDUNDANT: “WE DO NOT HAVE TRIAL BY EXPERT IN THIS COUNTRY: WE HAVE TRIAL BY JUDGE”
There is an interesting judgment on expert evidence at Domeney v Rees & Ors [2020] EWHC 2115 (QB), where Master Davis considered whether accident reconstruction evidence was necessary in relation to a trial. “We do not have trial by…
CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE IN OCTOBER 1: CHANGES TO THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY EXPERTS
The 122nd update Practice Direction Amendments come into force on the 1st October 2020. We have already looked at the changes to the rules relating to proceedings for contempt. Here we look at the change relating to the declaration that…
THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS : LOOKING AT GUIDANCE FROM THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
I have written before the useful guidance given by the Crown Prosecution Guidance on Expert Evidence. Many of the points in that guide apply, with equal force, to instructing experts in civil proceedings. It is worthwhile reading for lawyers and experts…
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…
LIFE EXPECTANCY IS RARELY A SIMPLE MATTER OF STATISTICS: APPLYING FOR A “VARIATION” OF DIRECTIONS: YOU SHOULD HAVE APPEALED
In the judgment this morning in Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1543 (QB) Jay J rejected an application by the defendant to rely on expert evidence in relation to life expectancy. This judgment is important…
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://i1.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…
