Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » credibility of experts
"IT IS NOT FOR AN EXPERT TO DISREGARD THE INSTRUCTIONS THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE COURT AND THE PARTY INSTRUCTING THEM AND TO THEREBY WHOLE SCALE IGNORE EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR OPINION" (ANOTHER CASE ON EXPERTS...)

“IT IS NOT FOR AN EXPERT TO DISREGARD THE INSTRUCTIONS THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE COURT AND THE PARTY INSTRUCTING THEM AND TO THEREBY WHOLE SCALE IGNORE EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR OPINION” (ANOTHER CASE ON EXPERTS…)

June 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have another example of expert witnesses being criticised by the court in the judgment of HHJ Claire Jackson in Davies-Gilbert v Goacher [2022] EWHC 969 (Ch).   “it is not for an expert to disregard the instructions they have…

EXPERTS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: A REVIEW OF THE RULES AND CASES: HOW EXPERTS CAN AVOID HITTING THE NET

EXPERTS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: A REVIEW OF THE RULES AND CASES: HOW EXPERTS CAN AVOID HITTING THE NET

April 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

An earlier post looked at the decision of Mr Justice Mostyn in Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762.  Part of that judgment dealt with the duties of experts to disclose an interest they have in the case.  This…

A "LACK OF OBJECTIVITY" IN AN EXPERT'S APPROACH: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CAUSATION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

A “LACK OF OBJECTIVITY” IN AN EXPERT’S APPROACH: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CAUSATION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

October 30, 2020 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Leach v North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 2914 (QB) HHJ Freedman (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) made some telling observations about the lack of objectivity of the defendant’s expert. THE CASE The claimant…

COVID REPEATS 39: THE DANGERS OF OBTAINING ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PROBLEM THAT CANNOT BE GARAGED

COVID REPEATS 39: THE DANGERS OF OBTAINING ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PROBLEM THAT CANNOT BE GARAGED

June 1, 2020 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This week we are looking at past posts and cases on witness statements and witness evidence. This is an area with no shortage of cases to choose from. I have made the point, many times, that witness statements are basically…

THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT'S EXAMINATION - THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT

THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION – THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT

May 21, 2020 · by gexall · in Arbitration,, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In October last year I wrote about the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB).  The claimant recorded her consultation with the defendant’s medical expert and was given permission to produce these in evidence.  That case has…

EXPERT WITNESS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE "BOMBASTIC BULLSHITTER"? A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE EXPERT IMPARTIALITY

EXPERT WITNESS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE “BOMBASTIC BULLSHITTER”? A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE EXPERT IMPARTIALITY

January 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Professor Penny Cooper for sending me a copy of the report she authored with Dr Michelle Mattison for the Expert Witness Institute – “Towards Expert Witness Independence and Impartiality”.  This post is just a snapshot, to…

EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS' CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS

EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment  of Mrs Justice Andrews today in Gee -v- Depuy International Ltd [2018] EWHC 1208. The judgment is 762 paragraphs long and will be widely read by…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 1: A STRUCTURED APPROACH: DEMEANOUR NOT DETERMINATIVE

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 1: A STRUCTURED APPROACH: DEMEANOUR NOT DETERMINATIVE

March 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has looked at issues relating to witness credibility on many occasions.  Here we look at a decision by the Upper Tribunal in  KB & AH (credibility-structured approach : Pakistan) [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC). This is of general interest.  Issues…

WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO "GO BACK TO SCHOOL":  CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO “GO BACK TO SCHOOL”: CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

September 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

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…

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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAI
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
  • COST BITES : BOTH PARTIES MADE “PART 36 OFFERS”: BOTH WERE INEFFECTIVE (AND THE MASTER WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES EVEN IF THEY WERE VALID…)
  • PRACTICE DIRECTION CHANGES INTRODUCED YESTERDAY: NEW PROVISIONS IN THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL: “OTHER REMEDY” CLAIMS CAN NOW BE MADE
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 15: THE STUDENTS LOAN COMPANY MAY BE AN “EMANATION OF THE STATE”: SOME INTERESTING ISSUES HERE: THESE ARE ISSUES OF LAW – NOT ONE ON WHICH A WITNESS CAN EXPRESS AN OPINION OR VIEW…

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.