WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT …. PREVENTING PROBLEMS WITH THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LITIGATION? 10 KEY POINTS
The use of Artificial Intelligence by the legal profession is now a fact of life. The genie will not go back into that particular bottle. However, as we have seen many times on this blog, it can lead to profound…
HOW SHOULD A CLAIMANT RESPOND TO THE COUNTER-SCHEDULE? WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2026
A great deal of the claimant lawyer’s time is spent considering and building a case on damages. However it is sensible for the lawyer to stop and think how realistic the claim for damages is. One of the best means…
EXPERT WATCH 77 : YOU CANNOT WAIT UNTIL TRIAL TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE (PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE EARLIER SAID IT WAS UNNECESSARY)
Here we have a case where the defendants, in a skeleton argument for trial, argued that the claimants could not succeed because they had to expert evidence to support their case for breach of duty. That submission was roundly rejected…
WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT … THE “AUTHENTICITY” OF DOCUMENTS (OR OTHERWISE)? TEN KEY POINTS FOR PRACTITIONERS CONSIDERING THE RISKS POSED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The post earlier this morning where the Upper Tribunal considered the problems with very authentic looking documents being produced by Artificial Intelligence is illustrative of a very real problem for civil practitioners. The judgment contains a timely reminder that documents…
WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT … APPLYING TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE (2): A GUIDE FOR RESPONDENTS: 10 KEY POINTS WITH USEFUL LINKS
This post is (obviously) the mirror image to the earlier post on applying to rely on expert evidence. Here we look at guidance for those opposing an application to rely on expert evidence. Again there are links to posts that…
WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT… APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ? A GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS: 10 KEY POINTS WITH USEFUL LINKS
A post yesterday dealt with an unsuccessful application to rely on expert evidence. This is an opportune moment to review the steps that a party seeking to rely on expert evidence should take. In the interest of balance a later…
EXPERT WATCH 76 : EXPERT EVIDENCE MAY ASSIST, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS REASONABLY REQUIRED: PERMISSION REFUSED IN AN APPEAL WORTH TENS OF MILLIONS
We are looking at a case where the tribunal considered whether a party should be granted permission to rely on expert evidence. The judge went back to first principles to consider the issue. It was a high value case with…
EXPERT WATCH 75: A CASE REPLETE WITH EXPERT ISSUES: A FAILURE TO PREPARE A JOINT REPORT PLUS THE CLAIMANT CREATES DIFFICULTIES FOR ITSELF WHEN IT DOES NOT ASK ITS EXPERT TO REPORT ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES
This is the second post on experts today. Here we are in a very different context – the law of dilapidations. This is an area that often requires expert input. In this case we see manifold problems with the way…
EXPERT WATCH 73: AN “AD HOMINEM ATTACK” ON A PARTY’S EXPERT FAILS TO IMPRESS THE JUDGE
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court is usually the most genteel of courts particularly when it comes to the treatment of expert evidence. That is one of the reasons this judgment comes as somewhat of a surprise. The strategy adopted in…
EXPERT WATCH 71: “I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE”: THE EXPERT WAS “ADVOCATING” AND “HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL”
We have seen that judge jealously (and rightly) guard against experts trespassing into the judicial role of fact finding. They are also suspicious of experts that take the role of advocates rather than independent experts. We see both of these…
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (4): EXPERTS AND THE USE OF AI: A LOT OF DANGER AREAS HERE: 20 KEY POINTS
Here we consider the risks that occur when experts use AI when they prepare a report or give evidence. We have seen several examples on this blog of evidence going awry. Here we draw upon guidance from previous posts, but…
WEBINAR ON PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: 9th SEPTEMBER 2026: USEFUL GUIDANCE, CHECKLISTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
This webinar provides a practical and up-to-date analysis of the law and practice relating to provisional damages and periodical payments in personal injury litigation. It begins with a review of recent case law, including a professional negligence claim arising from…
SHOULD (OR CAN) THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE WHEN THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT IS BASED IN ITALY? ANOTHER PAD APPLICATION COMES TO GRIEF…
Earlier today I promised a second post on pre-action disclosure. This case considered a number of issues, including whether the court actually has jurisdiction to make a PAD order when the respondent is based abroad. The judgment goes further than…
EXPERT WATCH 69: “THE APPROACH OF BOTH EXPERTS IS WRONG” : WHEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF $170 MILLION… THE JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE TO SIMPLY PICK A SIDE..
In this case the judge was categoric in his view that the approach of the experts from both sides was wrong. There was a major difference between the experts – just under $170 million. In these circumstances the judge is…
ACCOMMODATION AND APPLIANCE CLAIMS: THE CASES SINCE SWIFT -v- CARPENTER: WEBINAR 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
This webinar examines the legal and practical issues arising in accommodation and aids and appliances claims in personal injury litigation, with particular focus on the impact of Swift v Carpenter. The decision represents a significant development in how courts assess…
EXPERT WATCH 67: LITIGANTS NOT ALLOWED TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF AN EXPERT WHOSE EVIDENCE ON SOME ISSUES WAS “LARGELY UNHELPFUL”
It is rare to be able to see a costs decision on the recoverability of the costs of expert evidence. We have such a case here where the Competition Appeal Tribunal considered whether to allow a successful party to recover…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION AN 8 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE (AUGUST 2019): AND LOOK AT THE LINKS…
This week we go back to August 2019 with a simple (but I hope effective) post on avoiding negligence claims in civil litigation. Eight of the major problem areas were identified and succinct solutions offered. (There have been hundreds of…
EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY “WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT” TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
This judgment is critical of the way in which an expert report was prepared. The problems were manifold in relation to the way in which the information was obtained, the way it was presented and the failure to consider primary…
A QUICK REMINDER OF THE CLB WEBINARS NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”: ALSO (AND UNRELATED) SAYING AU REVOIR TO THE LITTLE WHITE DOG
There are a number of CLB webinars that are available “on demand”. There is a reduction for CLB members. This is also an opportune time to say au revoir to the little white dog that has been gracing the pages…
GENERAL DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY – THE KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 30th JULY 2026
Psychiatric injury claims raise some of the most challenging issues in personal injury litigation. Questions frequently arise as to whether a claimant has suffered a recognised psychiatric illness, how damages should be assessed, the role of expert evidence, and how…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN A DOCTOR PROVIDES A NOTE ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF A WITNESS: WHAT THE COURT REQUIRES
The issue of medical evidence to support a claim that a witness cannot attend trial, or requires some dispensation, have been some recurrent issues in litigation over the years. Many problems come from the medical evidence in support failing to…
EXPERT WATCH 63: WHEN A DOCTOR WRITES TO THE COURT AND THE JUDGE FINDS THE INFORMATION “UNRELIABLE”
There have been a number of cases where the courts have considered letters, or less formal “reports”, provided by doctors to support elements of a litigant’s case, usually in relation to an application for adjournment or procedural issue. There was…
EXPERT WATCH 62: ANOTHER CASE WHERE THE EXPERT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE “BOLAM” TEST: PLUS THE DANGERS OF INSTRUCTING AN EXPERT BY A “PORTAL”
For the second time today I am writing about a case where the trial judge was concerned that an expert witness for the claimant did not fully understand the “Bolam” test. The concern also extends to the way in which…
EXPERT WATCH 61: THE EXPERT WAS TELLING ME WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE RATHER THAN APPLYING THE BOLAM STANDARD: CLAIMANT’S CASE FAILS AT TRIAL
This case looks at a common issue in relation to experts, particularly in clinical negligence cases. Specialists can report on what they would have done (given their own level of expertise) rather than what the “reasonable” practitioner would have done. …
FATAL ACCIDENT DAMAGES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: HOW SHOULD CARE DEPENDENCY BE ASSESSED? DOES IT END IF A WIDOW GOES INTO A NURSING HOME
Here we have a detailed consideration of some of the key points in relation to fatal accident damages. In particular how claims for loss of a carer should be assessed. These are central issues in many cases and there is…
DAMAGES FOR PAIN SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY: RECENT CASES AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 23rd JULY 2026
Every personal injury claim includes a claim for damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Yet it is often the least analysed part of the claim. Awards are frequently based on broad assumptions, whilst opportunities to maximise a proper…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: EXPERT WITNESSES HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME MATERIAL: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
The post earlier this morning set out the judge’s reservations about the nature of the information given to the claimant’s experts. In particular the failure to give the sources of their information. In fact the requirements go further than that. …
EXPERT WATCH 58: SHOULD A DEFENDANT HAVE PERMISSION TO RELY UPON A NEW EXPERT WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE TRIAL DATE BEING VACATED?
Here we have a case where a defendant applied, late in the day, for an expert in a different discipline to those that had reported to date. Further that application was heard a month before the trial date. The judge…
EXPERT WATCH 57: JUDGE DECIDES THAT AN EXPERT, THAT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DUTIES TO THE COURT, SHOULD BE NAMED; “HE HAD A CHOICE TO INVOLVE HIMSELF IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TO BE PAID FOR DOING SO…”
Here we are looking at a decision related to the case we looked at yesterday relating to a medical expert in a family case. The judge gave a decision on whether an expert, who she found had failed in their…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
We have looked several times recently at the problems caused when a litigator serves their own witness evidence on behalf of a client, particularly a “corporate” client. It often turns out that large parts of this statement are inadmissible, consisting…
EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
One of the fascinating things about procedure is how the same principles apply across a whole range of cases. This is particularly the case with issues relating to evidence, particularly expert evidence. Earlier we looked at expert evidence in relation…
EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
It is never helpful to a party’s case when a judge comes to the conclusion that the expert they have instructed is partisan. We have an example of this in this extremely high value case. There is interesting commentary on…
EXPERT WATCH 54 : THE DEPUTY MASTER SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT: IT WAS RELEVANT AND ADDRESSED THE CENTRAL ISSUE
We are looking at a case where, on appeal, the judge found that a Deputy Master fell into error by failing to take into account relevant expert evidence provided by a claimant. The judge held that the Master had misunderstood…
EXPERT WATCH 53 (THAT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAIN): THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS MADE MISTAKES AND THEN “GAVE AN IMPRESSION OF LOFTINESS” : THE JUDGE FELT UNABLE TO RELY ON THEIR CONCLUSIONS
Here we have an example of a judge clearly rejecting the expert evidence adduced on behalf of a defendant and giving clear grounds for the criticism of them. This was in the context of a case where the defendant had…
PROVING THINGS 293: THE CLAIMANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: THE JUDGE DID NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES -AND THIS WAS A SUBMISSION THAT PUT THE DEFENDANT IN SOME JEOPARDY…
This is an interesting case on clinical negligence where judgment was given today. It warrants (and will receive) several posts. Here we look at the trial judge’s rejection of the argument that adverse inferences should be drawn when the claimant…
EXPERT WATCH 52: A REMINDER THAT THE JUDGE REMAINS THE SOLE FINDER OF FACT: (HOWEVER THIS A CASE WHERE THE JUDGE IS HIGHLY COMPLIMENTARY ABOUT SOME OF THE EXPERTS)
Here we look at the judge’s comments on expert evidence arising from a complex case in the Commercial Court. The judgment provides a reminder that experts should not be instructed to comment on matters of fact which are the sole…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN A RULE OR AN ORDER PRESCRIBES A PAGE LIMIT TO A WITNESS STATEMENT – THEN YOU’D BETTER STICK TO IT: THE COURT IS UNLIKELY TO CONDONE “FORENSIC CHEATING”
Here we are, with no apology, looking at the same case in the earlier post again. The earlier post dealt with the issue of relief from sanction. Here I want to concentrate on the litigant’s deliberate decision to breach the…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THIRTEEN YEARS OF BLOGGING (JUNE 2013): THE TEENAGE YEARS ARE STARTING…
Today we look at the posts from June 2013, that is the month that Civil Litigation Brief first started as a blog (24th June 2013). Prior to that it had been a monthly (and when the Civil Procedure Rules were…
EXPERT WATCH 51: THE EXPERT VALUERS SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO THIS EXERCISE “BLIND” – THEIR CREDIBILITY WOULD BE “MUCH IMPROVED”
In this case the judge expressly sets out a method of instructing the experts which would have been of more assistance to the court. In essence that the valuation experts should have been instructed, initially, without any knowledge of the…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AND PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS – CLB IS PICKING UP THE PACE: LOOKING AT A CASE WHERE EVERYTHING WHEN DISASTROUSLY WRONG PROCEDURALLY – WITH CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW TO AVOID THIS GOING FORWARD
This blog has been looking at cases relating to civil procedure for 13 years this month. We have seen many hundreds (possibly thousands) of cases where things have gone badly wrong, particularly in relation to procedure and limitation. Most of…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: WHEN A CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE ANY LOSS AND ATTEMPTED TO USE A LAY WITNESS AS AN EXPERT (JUNE 2018):”THERE IS NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS”
We have seen recent examples of cases where parties have failed to prove that they have suffered any loss. The attempts by lay witnesses to give “expert” evidence is also a recurrent theme in this blog. Here we go back…
THE COURT CAN ORDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AGAINST A RELUCTANT LANDLORD: IF THE DEFENDANT WANTED TO ARGUE THAT THIS WAS NOT FEASIBLE THEN IT SHOULD HAVE ADDUCED EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL
There is little (if any) point litigating if a claimant is not going to obtain an effective remedy if successful. Here we have a case where the claimant sought (and obtained) an order for specific performance. There are lessons here…
EXPERT WATCH 50: THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN HIS TRUE OPINIONS EARLIER – NOT WAITED UNTIL CROSS-EXAMINATION
Experts faced with evidence that appears to contradict their earlier views often face a dilemma. In particular they need to consider whether their earlier conclusions remain valid. We have an example here where the judge was critical of the expert’s…
EXPERT WATCH 49: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “UNUSUAL” AT AN INTERLOCUTORY HEARING: “THIS MIXTURE OF OF SUBMISSIONS AND OPINION WAS NOT CPR 35 COMPLIANT EXPERT EVIDENCE”
Here we look at part of a judgment that dealt with expert evidence. The Master was clear that a party could not rely on expert evidence without permission. The use of such evidence is “unusual” in an interlocutory application. Further…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026
Expert evidence plays a critical and often decisive role in clinical negligence litigation, and the ability to assess such evidence is a core skill for litigators. This webinar examines the legal framework and case law governing the credibility and admissibility…
DO LAWYERS (AND EXPERTS) LIKE CHECKLISTS THAT ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES? WELL, I MAY HAVE A TREAT FOR YOU TOMOPRROW
Checklists are always a feature of discussions I have with publishers and legal professionals. I have prepared have created a whole series of checklists for lawyers (9 in total) and a series for experts (6), plus a “Judicial Red Flags”…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
There is no shortage of posts on this blog where judges have been critical of expert witnesses (and sometimes those who instruct them). This webinar examines how courts assess and evaluate expert evidence in personal injury litigation, with a particular…
PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 13: WHERE THERE IS BLAME THERE IS NOT ALWAYS A CLAIM: THE DEFENDANT BREACHED THEIR DUTY BUT THE CLAIMANT’S ACTION FAILED
Today we will, primarily, be looking at personal injury and clinical negligence issues. Here we look at a case where the claim failed even though the judge found there was a breach of duty. The difficulty for the claimant was…
EXPERT WATCH 47: AN EXPERT CANNOT OMIT MATTERS FROM THEIR REPORT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY COULD EXPLAIN THEM WHEN QUESTIONED: “THIS BELIED A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE OBLIGATIONS UPON A CPR COMPLIANT REPORT”
Here we have a very short post on a very significant matter. That is the circumstances in which an expert can miss out the limitations of the data in their report on the basis that they could explain this when…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: WEBINAR 19th MAY 2026: USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRES AND CHECKLISTS INCLUDED
Claims for loss of earnings are a critical component of many personal injury and civil litigation cases, yet they are also among the most vulnerable to failure. Poorly evidenced claims, misunderstanding of legal principles, or flawed calculations can lead not…
You must be logged in to post a comment.