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://i0.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…
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION GOES UP IN SMOKE…
Possibly the most difficult position you could put yourself in in litigation is for the court to make an order, do something the court did not allow, not get permission in advance, and then seek relief from sanctions thereafter. …
COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS
The impartiality, or otherwise, of expert witness witnesses was in the news in June 2014. Since expert evidence has been a constant theme on this blog. This would seem an appropriate time to revisit a post about the cross-examination of…
COVID REPEATS 36: DEFENDANT’S EXPERT TOLD TO GET ON HIS BIKE: WHEN A PARTY “WISELY” PLACES NO RELIANCE ON THEIR OWN EXPERT IN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS
Today we are looking again at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in Sinclair -v- Joyner [2015] EWHC Civ 1800 (QB). Some important observations about the role of the expert and the conduct of the expert instructed by the defendant…
COVID REPEATS 35: EXPERTS: DECLARATIONS OF TRUTH SIGNED RECKLESSLY
Problems with experts are very similar across all jurisdictions. The case of Pabon, R v [2018] EWCA Crim 420 is an illuminating one. A decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division it shows the dangers when an expert does not comply…
COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
Today we are looking back at the case of Hirtenstein -v- Hill Dickinson LLP [2014] EWHC 2711 (Comm) contains many interesting lessons for those involved in professional negligence litigation in particular. Here I just want to concentrate upon two:…
COVID REPEATS 33: YOU’LL NEVER GET TYRED OF THIS: AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”:
This is “experts” week for our stroll back through various posts on this blog. In September 2017 barrister Brian McCluggage for sent me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which…
COVID REPEATS 32: EXPERTS: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES: THE EXPERT THAT DIDN’T BOUGH DOWN TO THE RULES…
This week, providing there are no major developments that draw us elsewhere, the repeats are going to be about cases relating to experts. Firstly we go back to 2014 the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Stagecoach Great Western Trains -v- Hind…
EXPERTS NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES: DEPLETES YOUR ENERGY: A HIGH COURT CASE
The “Covid Repeats” section of this blog next week will review cases relating to experts. Problems with experts remain a key issue in litigation. Primarily caused by the expert’s failure to follow the basic rules and court orders. Examples can…
THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION – THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT
In October last year I wrote about the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB). The claimant recorded her consultation with the defendant’s medical expert and was given permission to produce these in evidence. That case has…
EXPERTS CAN’T BE ADVOCATES: IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT
There are some interesting observations about the role of the expert made by Judge Asif Malek in Neil Picklessharon Pickles v Revenue & Customs (Whether crediting a directors’ loan account which was freely available for the directors/members to draw upon…
THE EXPERT’S DUTY TO GIVE A RANGE OF OPINION: A DECISION NOT TO DO SO “BORDERING ON ARROGANCE”
Experts have a mandatory duty under the rules to give a range of opinion for their advices. I am grateful to Gary Smith from Prince Evans & Co for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Belcher in…
DIVISIONAL COURT FINDS THAT EXPERT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ERASED FROM MEDICAL REGISTER: “NEW” EVIDENCE ADMITTED
The judgment of the Divisional Court today in General Medical Council & Ors v Zafar [2020] EWHC 846 (Admin) provides an interesting sequel to the earlier judgments in relation to contempt of court by a doctor who had been seriously…
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,…