AN EXPERT WHO TENDED TOWARDS BEING AN ADVOCATE: YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER CASE: THE NEED FOR A MEASURED RESPONSE
It may be indicative that there are such a large number of cases where judges have criticised experts for veering towards advocacy that I sometimes hesitate as to whether they merit writing about. However such a tendency was noted by…
NINE YEARS ON IX: 2022: EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT
In the final post of this series I have chosen a post from January 2022. There are many common themes on this blog: relief from sanctions; service of the claim form; Part 36; witness statements, among them. However it is…
DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE PART 35 DUTY OWED TO THE COURT: JUDGE ISSUES REMINDER
The previous post looked at the rejection of allegations of fundamental dishonesty in Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB). That judgment also contains some observations in relation to several of the medical experts called on behalf of the…
EXPERT HAD A “FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR HIS DUTY TO THE COURT”: ORDERED TO PAY £50,500 WASTED COSTS
NB – THE COSTS ORDER AGAINST THE EXPERT IN THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. THE JUDGMENT ON APPEAL CAN BE FOUND HERE. The judgment of Recorder Hudson in Robinson -v- Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Dr Chris…
You must be logged in to post a comment.