Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Experts » Page 10
IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS...

IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Book Review, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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"

November 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

November 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

November 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

ANOTHER EXPERT WITNESS GOES AWRY: PATENTLY A PROBLEM

October 30, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

October 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

October 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)

August 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

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…

ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT

August 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Damages, Default judgment,, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

August 1, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

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.

July 28, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

May 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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….

THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN LAWYERS & EXPERTS: A DIFFICULT ISSUE

May 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

PROVING THINGS 15: DAMAGES & EVIDENCE: GOING BACK TO COLLEGE

April 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

April 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

March 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

EXPERTS AND FACTS: IT IS ALL IN THE RULES

February 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

Following the post yesterday about proving things and the role of experts there was an interesting comment from Elfed Williams. WHAT DOES AN EXPERT DO ABOUT FACTS? “I have some misgivings about whether an expert should identify primary facts and…

THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN LITIGATION: SUPREME COURT GUIDANCE

February 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

PERMISSION NOT GRANTED TO CALL EMPLOYMENT EXPERTS: THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

January 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

SOME WITNESSES MAY NOT BE GOOD HISTORIANS BUT GOOD HISTORIANS CANNOT BE WITNESSES

December 20, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

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

December 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

December 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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

December 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

WHEN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE LAY AND EXPERT WITNESSES LIES IN SHREDS

November 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

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…

GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS: CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL: WHO DOES AN EXPERT "REPRESENT"?

September 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

It is rare that lawyers can look to the British Dental Journal for advice on procedure and evidence.  However there is a beautifully phrased letter in the British Dental Journal “reviewing a review”. THE LETTER The writer was commenting on…

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST "EXPERT WITNESSES" ARE NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision of the Divisional Court in Accident Exchange Ltd -v- Nathan John George-Broom & Ors [2015] EWHC 2205 (Admin) is certainly a development in the practice relating to dismissal. THE CASE The claimants applied to commit a number of…

A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES: THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: DUNNAGE -v- RANDALL

July 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Liability, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision today in Dunnage -v- Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673 is one of those seminal cases that every tort law student will have to read.  Here we look at the case and the procedure. In particular…

APPEAL COURT CAN DECIDE ISSUES BETWEEN EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: AND ANOTHER LOOK AT WITNESS STATEMENTS

June 25, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

 The issue of when an appeal can court take its own view on expert evidence was considered in Group Seven Limited -v- Allied Investment Corporation Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 631. The judgment at first instance also makes for informative reading…

ANOTHER UNSATISFACTORY EXPERT: WITH A WRONG VIEW OF HIS ROLE

June 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Sinclair -v- Joyner [2015] EWHC Civ 1800 (QB)  Mrs Justice Cox made some important observations about the role of the expert and the conduct of the expert instructed by the defendant in that case. THE CASE The claimant was…

CAUSATION AND EVIDENCE – A BURNING PROBLEM? IMPORTANT ISSUES FROM A BIZARRE SET OF FACTS

June 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Graves -v- Brouwer [2015] EWCA Civ 595 the Court of Appeal carried out an extensive review of the principles and authorities relating to evidence and causation.  There is a useful discussion on the role and questioning of experts at…

OPINION EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE CASE THAT MAY HAVE SPARKED OFF THE JACKSON REFORMS: Multiplex -v- Cleveland Bridge

June 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Experts, Members Content

Whilst doing some work on the problems caused when lay witnesses attempt to give expert evidence I came across the case of  Multiplex Constructions (UK) LImited -v- Cleveland Bridge UK Limited [2008] EWHC 2220(TCC). It makes interesting reading for a…

EXPERT REPORTS: TOO LONG AND NOT MUCH USE: CARE EXPERTS MUST TAKE MORE CARE

June 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In the case of Harman -v- East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 1662 (QB) Mr Justice Turner had some very clear criticisms of the expert reports. Some of the comments are of general importance. “Against the background of…

LATE APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: STOPPED AT THE DOCK

May 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Disclosure, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of His Honour Judge Stephen Davies in  (sitting as a judge of the High Court)  in William Clark Partnership Limited -v- Dock St PCT Limited [2015] EWHC B5 (TCC) illustrates the problems caused when applications are made late….

I DIDN'T MEAN IT WHEN I SIGNED THE JOINT REPORT: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EXPERTS CHANGE THEIR MINDS?

May 19, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt in Iraqi Civilians -v- Ministry of Defence [2015] EWHC 1254 (QB) contains some interesting passages in relation to an expert reneging from the contents of a joint report. In particular what is the appropriate…

AN EXPERT MUST DISCLOSE DETAILS OF PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A PARTY OTHERWISE THE CONSEQUENCES CAN BE DIRE: EXP -v- BARKER

May 7, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Experts, Members Content

The facts in relation to the Defendant’s expert witness in the case  of EXP -v- Barker [2015] EWHC 1289 (QB) are quite remarkable. The case shows the importance of an expert disclosing their history of dealing with the person on…

← Previous 1 … 9 10

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT … THE “AUTHENTICITY” OF DOCUMENTS (OR OTHERWISE)? TEN KEY POINTS FOR PRACTITIONERS CONSIDERING THE RISKS POSED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
  • FALSE DOCUMENTS, LATE EVIDENCE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES THAT MAKE JUDICIAL LIFE MORE DIFFICULT…
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHAT DO YOU DO IF A WITNESS FINDS A MISTAKE IN THEIR STATEMENT?
  • ARE YOU SURE WHO IS REALLY INSTRUCTING YOU? SOLICITORS DECEIVED BY A FALSE EMAIL ADDRESS IN NAOMI CAMPBELL’S CASE
  • COSTS BITES 461: WINNING THE CASE BUT LOSING THE MAIN BATTLE MEANS CLAIMANT RECOVERS 85% OF COSTS: DEFENDANT CANNOT SEEK THE ADVANTAGES OF PART 36 WITHOUT MAKING A PART 36 OFFER

Top Posts

DECODING THE DIRECTORIES: ALSO WHO ASSESSES THOSE WHO ASSESS US: CAN LAWYERS BITE BACK? A WHOLLY FICTIONAL EXAMPLE...
THE CHANCERY DIVISION IS NO MORE: A PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT
AI AND CIVIL JUSTICE: PREPARING FOR THE TSUNAMI – LORD BRIGGS ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL RULES AND THE HUMAN JUDGE
ARE YOU SURE WHO IS REALLY INSTRUCTING YOU? SOLICITORS DECEIVED BY A FALSE EMAIL ADDRESS IN NAOMI CAMPBELL’S CASE
MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 27 FACTUAL WITNESSES AND THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY: WITNESS EVIDENCE IN THE MANCHESTER CITY PROCEEDINGS

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.