MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS: MEDCO ALLOW REMOTE EXAMINATIONS
Last week Medco issued a ban on remote video medical examinations. Today it has changed its mind, in an announcement available here. THE ANNOUNCEMENT REMOTE EXAMINATIONS With immediate effect and until further notice the ban on remote video medical…
EXPERT’S CONDUCT DID NOT LEAD TO EVIDENCE BEING DISALLOWED: CLAIMANT’S CASE REMAINS ON TRACK
In Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 387 (TCC) HHJ Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) carried out a detailed consideration of the conduct of an expert when considering,…
EXPERT WITNESSES: HANDING THE JUDGE AN UNSORTED MEDLEY OF DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO DOWN TOO WELL
There was one aspect of the evidence mentioned in the judgment Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 379 (QB) Mrs Justice Farbey that was somewhat unusual. An expert handed the judge a “file of documents” to…
CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL EXPERT ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS: EXPERTS PLEASE NOTE (EXPERTS’ INSURERS NOTE CAREFULLY)
In Thimmaya -v- Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust (30th January 2020, Manchester County Court) HHJ Claire Evans ordered that a medical expert pay a significant part of the defendant’s costs when she found that the expert had failed in his duties…
STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 9: SHARING THE “PAIN”
Most of the burden of complying with time periods and court orders lies with the solicitor. However a solicitor’s life can be made easier by making sure that all those concerned with the litigation process know of the deadlines involved…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 77: THE COURT MUST KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4(2)
CPR 35.4(2) is often overlooked. This rule imposes a duty on a party applying for permission to rely on expert evidence to inform the court how much the expert is likely to cost. This is often clear at the costs…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – A ROUND UP OF THE ROUND UPS: WHAT TO FRET ABOUT AND WHAT NOT TO FRET ABOUT…
There have been a series of annual reviews on key topics throughout December. To round off the year it seemed a good idea to provide a reminder of them all and put the links in one place 2019 AND CIVIL…
CIVIL LITIGATION CASE OF THE YEAR: BATES -v- THE POST OFFICE: LITIGATING IN THE FACE OF “INSTITUTIONAL PARANOIA”
There was never any doubt in my mind as to the civil litigation case of the year – Bates -v- The Post Office. All civil litigation is here, witness and expert evidence, allegations of bias, disclosure and much more. One…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE YEAR IN REVIEW (6): WHY WE STILL FRET OVER EXPERTS …
It is no surprise that there are numerous posts on experts this year. 26 years after the blast from the courts on the role of experts in the Ikerian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyds Reports 68 there are still regular reports…
2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (4): FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY
There have been relatively few cases about fundamental dishonesty this year. However the cases that have been reported have all been interesting. The first involves a failing adverse to the defendant. The second highlights the point that there is no…
WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES DUE TO ABSENT EVIDENCE? COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
The judgment of the Court of Appeal today in Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 makes some important points in relation to civil evidence. It reviews the law relating to the drawing of adverse inferences due…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 72: THE EXPERT’S DUTY TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR VIEWS (A MANDATORY OBLIGATION MORE HONOURED IN THE BREACH…)
The recent post on the decision in Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) highlights a common omission from many expert reports. The expert’s duty to consider whether there is a range of opinion and to give…
EXPERTS, IMPARTIALITY AND CELEBRITY BEDSPREADS: BE CAREFUL OF THE WAY YOU INSTRUCT EXPERTS AND YOU MAY SLEEP TIGHTLY (YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY)
In Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) HHJ Melissa Clarke considered, and was critical of, the way in which an expert was instructed. The difficulty was that the appointed expert moved from “hired gun” hired…
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL REFUSED: A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN MAKING: THE TRIAL WILL GO AHEAD
There is an interesting summary of the decision in Mitchell -v- Precis 545 Ltd (15/11/2019) on Kings Chambers website. A report by my colleague Jeremy Roussak of a case where he represented the claimant and where HHJ Freedman refused a…
PROVING THINGS 167: BUNDLES, EXPERTS, ABSENT WITNESS, UNPLEADED DEFENCES AND… SEWAGE: ALL MODERN LITIGATION IS HERE…
The judgment of HHJ Russen (QC) (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Kivells Ltd v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 2846 (TCC), contains a number of interesting scenarios in relation to civil evidence. Many of the common problems of…
PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN PERMISSION OF THE COURT, AND DIRECTIONS, BEFORE INSTRUCTING EXPERTS
In Gulf International Bank BSC v Aldwood [2019] EWHC 1666 (QB) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) made some observations about using expert evidence on foreign law without the court’s permission. THE CASE The judge was…
THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE
The “Back to Basics” series, as the title suggests, deals with some of the basic elements of civil procedure. It covers everything from applications and bundles to the taking of witness statements. The titles are often prompted by elements…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD…
One, unusual, aspect of the decision in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) is that the experts had sought directions from the court. This brings attention to the (apparently) little used provisions of CPR 35.14. Experts have the…
WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT’S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT’S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE
An earlier post dealt with the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) and the claimant’s decision to record her appointments with the defendant’s medical experts. The issue of what, precisely, was said to an expert can…
CLAIMANT’S QUESTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS DISALLOWED: PART 35 HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR PROPORTIONALITY: EXPERTS SEEK HELP
There is another aspect of the judgment of Master Davison in In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) that is of considerable interest. The Master disallowed a series of lengthy questions to the experts. The Master pointed out…