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…
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…
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…
EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
I am grateful to Graham Hain for pointing out the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands) Chamber in Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO) (RATING – procedure) [2018] UKUT 253 (LC). This specifically relates to experts in the Lands Chamber,…
AN EXPERT’S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN
I am grateful to barrister Charles Holland for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Meek in Endless Stretch -v- Newcastle County Council. A copy can be found in the link on this page. This case is…
THE NATURE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE AT ALL – AND OF NO HELP TO ME: JUDGE NOT IMPRESSED BY “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
It is rare for the court to reject “expert” evidence placed before it on the grounds that it is not expert evidence at all. This is rarer still now that permission is normally required before expert evidence can be adduced. It…
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 OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT
In Condor Vilca & ors -v- Xstrata Limited [2017] EWHC 582 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart-Smith rejected an application that a party disclose its previous expert evidence when it needed to change its choice of expert. The reason for the change…
EXPERTS NOT WELLCOME HERE (NOT YET ANYWAY): PARTIES NEED TO ESTABLISH NEED FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE
In Glaxo Wellcome Uk Limited -v- Sandoz Limited [2017] EWHC 1524 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh refused the defendants’ application to rely on three expert witnesses. The judgment contains interesting observations on the nature of the information that needs to be…
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…
PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT “USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT”
There is an interesting discussion of the purpose of pleadings and expert evidence in the judgment of HH Parkes QC in PP -v- The Home Office [2017] EWHC 663 (QB). The fact that an expert report is referred to in…