EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE’S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS
I am trespassing into the area of family law to look at decision of Mr Justice Moor in Buehrlen v Buehrlen [2017] EWHC 3643 (Fam). It is of general interest to civil lawyers because it involves the court considering whether expert…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
THE SHORTER TRIAL SCHEME: PROCEDURAL WRANGLING AND PROBLEMATIC EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT CAN’T BE BRUSHED ASIDE
In the judgment today in L’Oréal Société Anonyme RN Ventures Ltd [2018] EWHC 173 (Pat) Mr Justice Henry Carr set out his concerns on aspects of the procedure and expert evidence before the court. The judgment contains some lessons for litigators…
EXPERT REPORTS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED CONCURRENTLY: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN A CAR HIRE CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO A SKELETON ARGUMENT
The decision of District Judge Glen in Kansal -v- Tang (31st January 2017, County Court at Slough) is available on the DWF website. It says a lot about “expert” evidence about hire rates. In particular the judge’s comment that evidence…
HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE
I have lost track of the number of interlocutory judgments there have been in the case of Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest judgment being at [2017] EWHC 3054 (QB). This judgment deals with the issue…
CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEW OF 2017 (III): EXPERTS: SNEAKINESS, DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS, ARROGANCE AND NO CONCEPT OF THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT
There have been plenty of interesting cases on experts this year. Here are a few select cases. ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE IN There have been a number of cases where parties have attempted to “disguise” expert evidence. Teva UK…
HOT TUBBING OF EXPERTS: NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION
The 93rd Update on Practice Direction Amendments also introduced a change in the rules as to concurrent evidence from experts. This gives the trial judge a considerable degree of flexibility about the way in which expert evidence is heard. These rules came…
WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …
In British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …
NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE “BEYOND” THE 11th HOUR NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED IN THE TCC
In DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd [2017] EWHC 3092 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson overturned a decision giving a counterclaiming defendant permission to rely upon an expert report on quantum shortly before trial. The case is an example…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: A JUDGE MAKES THE FINDINGS FIRST AND CONSIDERS THE EXPERT EVIDENCE NEXT
In Graham & Anor v Campfield & Anor [2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss made some important observations about findings of fact and expert evidence. It shows the importance of primary findings of fact and the limitations of expert evidence. …
THE BANK OF IRELAND CASE ROUND TWO: APPROPRIATE SUMS FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED BECAUSE OF CONDUCT OF EXPERT
In an earlier post we looked at the judgment in Bank of Ireland -v- Watts Group PLC [2017]EWHC 1667 (TCC) where Mr Justice Coulson was particularly excoriating about the claimant’s expert. Having lost the case the bank had to pay the…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) is one that has already made headlines. There is much of interest. However, that part of the judgment that deals with the analysis of…
EVIDENCE IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: MISSING WITNESSES AND ERRANT EXPERTS: LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EARLIER: ATTEMPT TO BACKTRACK FROM JOINT REPORT NOT SUCCESSFUL
The case of Palmer v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2460 (QB) is one where the defendant was, ultimately, successful on the issue of causation. However the judge had some interesting observations as to the expert evidence called by both…
SOME WARNINGS AS TO EVIDENCE: A SYMPHONY REVIVED: HOW THE JUDGE CONDUCTS AN ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY
The post yesterday on witness credibility in the case of Frenkel v Lyampert & Ors [2017] EWHC 2223 (Ch) referred to a passage in the earlier case of EPI Environmental Technologies Inc v Symphony Plastic Technologies plc (Practice Note) [2005] 1 WLR 3456. This…
EXPERT REPORTS: “CONTENTIONS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PURSUED AT ALL”
In Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company “Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) Sir Michael Burton (sitting as a High Court Judge) commented on the expert evidence in relation to Russian law. The fact that an expert made concessions…
WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO “GO BACK TO SCHOOL”: CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS
The case of Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017)* highlights some of the issues that arise in the meeting of experts. The meeting is an important stage in many types of action, however the case law and rules relating to it…
AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”: THIS DOESN’T END WELL
Problems caused by expert witnesses feature heavily on this blog. I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which contains robust…
EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN “NO WEIGHT AT ALL”: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There are some interesting passages in the judgment of David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Technomed Ltd & Anor v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch). Here we look at the judgment…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHEN PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS “ABSURD” – THIS IS NO SMALL BEER
I am grateful to barrister Simon Mills for sending me a copy of the judgment of Judge Waksman QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in BHL -v- Leumi ABL Limited [2017] EWHC 1871 (QB). Here I look at…
ERRANT EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOES MISSING: CLAIMANT’S EXPERTS FEEL THE HEAT
I am returning for the fifth time to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have seen the judge’s views on the witnesses, the claimant’s disclosure and arguments that…
BUNDLES WERE A DOG’S DINNER: MISSING WITNESSES AND AN EXPERT WITH NO CONCEPT OF HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Bank of Ireland -v- Watts Group PLC [2017]EWHC 1667 (TCC) exemplifies many of the issues in litigation that are regularly covered in this blog: bundles, missing witnesses and errant experts. In particular…
JUDGES, FACT FINDING AND GRENFELL: THE CRUCIAL QUESTION – IS THIS JUDGE A GOOD FACT FINDER
If you write a blog on civil procedure it is not hard to steer a course away from the issues of the day. However there is one issue of the day that is hard to ignore. The criticisms of the…
INSTRUCTING EXPERTS: FAILURE TO HAVE CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES COMPOUNDS THE PROBLEMS
In Astex Therapeutics Limited -v- Astranzenca AB [2017] EWHC 1442 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold considered lengthy and complex issues in relation to compounds. However even in a case of such complexity the evidence of the experts should have been more…
EXPERTS AND EVIDENCE: WHEN THE CASE GETS PIECED TOGETHER ON THE EVE OF THE TRIAL
In the course of a very detailed judgment today in a clinical negligence case Mr Justice Langstaff made some important observations about expert evidence. He observed that late evidence may lead to costs consequences. Given that the whole rationale of…
WHEN IS AN EXPERT NEEDED? NOT HERE
CPR 35. imposes a duty on the court to restrict expert evidence “Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings”. This has led to some interesting case law. The most recent discussion is…
EXPERT EVIDENCE AND EXPERT CREDIBILITY: DISCLOSING KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTIES IS IMPORTANT
In Thefaut -v- Johnson [2017] EWHC 497(QB) Mr Justice Green made some important observations about the need for experts to be candid about their prior knowledge of, and relationships with, the parties to the action. A failure to mention knowledge…
EXPERT WITNESSES: RARELY TOTALLY IMPARTIAL BUT SOME ARE LESS PARTIAL THAN OTHERS
There is a short passage in the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon in Edward Lifesciences -v- Boston Scientific 2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) (03 March 2017) that encapsulate the issues surrounding the assessment of expert evidence. “Rarely, if ever, is an…
EXPERTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE: DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON EXPERT ALSO USED BY CLAIMANT
In Wheeldon Brothers Waste Limited -v- Millennium Insurance Company Limited [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson allowed the defendant to rely on an expert that had also been instructed by the claimant. The circumstances are unusual and the case needs…
PROVING THINGS 52: SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION FAILS ON ALL COUNTS: NO NEGLIGENCE AND NO LOSS
The judgment of HHH David Cooke today in Anderson Properties Ltd -v- Blyth Liggins [2017] EWHC 244 (Ch) is another example of a solicitor’s negligence case failing because of the absence of basic evidence in relation to liability, causation and damages….
TRIAL JUDGE’S REJECTION OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: IF AN EXPERT KNOWS A PARTY THEY SHOULD SAY SO
In EXP -v- Barker [2017] EWCA Civ 63 the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s rejection of the evidence of an expert witness. “the starting point is to identify what the judge decided. He considered that the witness had…
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: 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 47: FIRE IN THE LOFT: IT WASN’T THE MOUSE MAN AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) is another example of a claimant failing to prove their case. More curiously, in some respects, the claimant’s own evidence contradicted their case. “In circumstances where there…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY
This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year. As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS…
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]…
PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK
A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages. This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker…
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…
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…
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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.