Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Admissibility of expert evidence
GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 2: THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL: AN EXPERT'S REPORT WITHOUT REASONING IS "ALL BUT WORTHLESS"

GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 2: THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL: AN EXPERT’S REPORT WITHOUT REASONING IS “ALL BUT WORTHLESS”

October 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

This is the second post about the Court of Appeal decision in   Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1442.  Here we look at the other grounds of appeal considered by the majority.  In particular an expert’s duty to state…

NO MATTER HOW BIG YOU ARE, OR HOW IMPORTANT (YOU THINK) YOU ARE -  YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES: SECRETARY OF STATE REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE

NO MATTER HOW BIG YOU ARE, OR HOW IMPORTANT (YOU THINK) YOU ARE – YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES: SECRETARY OF STATE REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE

October 4, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts

In  Good Law Project Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser issued a clear and stark warning that expert evidence has to comply with the…

EXPERT EVIDENCE, NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND ADMISSIBILITY: BOP-ME, MASKS AND EXPERTISE

EXPERT EVIDENCE, NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND ADMISSIBILITY: BOP-ME, MASKS AND EXPERTISE

July 5, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

There is an interesting discussion of the use of expert evidence in the context of specialist proceedings in the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Bop-Me Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC…

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND TOO COSTLY

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND TOO COSTLY

December 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

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 ...

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE YEAR IN REVIEW (6): WHY WE STILL FRET OVER EXPERTS …

December 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, 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

PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN PERMISSION OF THE COURT, AND DIRECTIONS, BEFORE INSTRUCTING EXPERTS

October 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, 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

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

September 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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

AN EXPERT’S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

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"

THE NATURE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE AT ALL – AND OF NO HELP TO ME: JUDGE NOT IMPRESSED BY “ATTACHMENT THEORY”

June 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

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 ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS

October 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

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

EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT

July 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence

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

EXPERTS NOT WELLCOME HERE (NOT YET ANYWAY): PARTIES NEED TO ESTABLISH NEED FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE

June 29, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, 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

INSTRUCTING EXPERTS: FAILURE TO HAVE CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES COMPOUNDS THE PROBLEMS

June 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

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"

PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT “USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT”

March 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Statements of Case

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…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 26,226 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES – OR ELSE
  • IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
  • WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: THINKING ABOUT DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FROM THE OUTSET: WEBINAR 20th JULY 2022
  • “THE LADD -V- MARSHALL CRITERIA ARE CUMULATIVE”: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED BUT APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE REFUSED: APPEAL ON JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT FAILED

Top Posts & Pages

  • IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES - OR ELSE
  • WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: THINKING ABOUT DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FROM THE OUTSET: WEBINAR 20th JULY 2022
  • RECENT CASES IN FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THEM? WEBINAR 8th JUNE 2022

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2022 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin