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…
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)
When looking at previous posts we are looking for issues that remain relevant today. This case, about the conduct of experts and their interaction with lawyers, remains highly pertinent. The judge held that the breaches were so severe that the…
WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
We don’t normally look at the same case twice in the same day. However this particular judgment needs looking at from different angles. The previous post looked at the case from the point of view of the pleadings. However the…
EXPERT WATCH 46: GUIDANCE AS TO THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION: (BUT SOMETHING FOR ALL OF US TO TAKE AWAY…)
The guidance given in this case is obviously of interest to those who practice in the Court of Protection (as practitioner or expert). However some of the points made here are of general interest. In particular in relation to the…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST…
Here we are looking at a basic requirement that is often overlooked. When a party is applying for permission to rely on expert evidence there is a mandatory obligation to provide the court with an estimate of costs. THE…
PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
No sooner was the (metaphorical) ink dry on the previous post about loss of earnings when I received a useful case from David Platt KC. It is a judgment that contains much of interest to litigators (that we will return…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A “NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE” (APRIL 2018)
If there is a judgment that still resonates in practical terms today it is the one we are considering here. It asks the answer how should schedules be drafted? It then gives the answers. This was in a case where…
EXPERT WATCH 44: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EVIDENCE OF ONE EXPERT OVER ANOTHER: IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT…
Here we have a case where success for the claimant rested almost wholly on their expert evidence being accepted. This is not altogether unusual for a clinical negligence case. What is notable about this case is that the treating doctor…
EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
The previous post on costs and mediation led to me to look at the initial judgment on liability. This is because the court considered an argument that the situation with the claimant’s expert was so poor as to warrant indemnity…
PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)
Assessing claims for loss of earnings for children is always difficult. The importance of this has become, if anything, more acute given the Supreme Court decision in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals…
“GUIDE, MENTOR AND FRIEND”: REVIEW OF THE APIL GUIDE TO CATASTROPHIC INJURY CLAIMS 4th EDITION: STUART McKECHNIE KC (AND A FORMIDABLE TEAM): THE “LITTLE GEM” THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
The fundamental question for a reviewer of a legal text is – is this book worthwhile? Here there is only one answer. A book of considerable importance, assistance and utility is a “must buy”. HOW DO I SUMMARISE THIS? Sir…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: PD57AC WAS FIVE YEARS OLD THIS MONTH – STILL GUIDANCE IS NEEDED
The Business and Property Courts – The Commercial Court Report 2024-2025 makes interesting reading. It notes that PD57AC came into force some five years ago. It still shows the need to emphasise that the Practice Direction needs to be complied…
CIVIL EVIDENCE: “BARE ASSERTIONS” ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A DISPUTED DEBT NOR WILL “VAGUE AND UNPARTICULARISED” EVIDENCE
This case serves as a reminder that, if a debt is to be disputed, then the evidence in support of the denial has to be particularised and credible. Here the respondents faced a debt of £920,000. There was an attempt…
A REMINDER – DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
We are just looking at a few lines from a judgment we looked at earlier this morning. They contain a reminder that documents in an agreed bundle are admissible as evidence at the hearing. However this does not mean that…
AN “EXTERNAL” REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
We have, for many years now, been looking at the way in which the courts consider the admissibility of reports prepared for related purposes. We have that issue considered in this case. A report was obtained in relation to allegations…
THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
Here we consider some unusual grounds of appeal. An unsuccessful claimant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had erred in giving leeway to the defendant who was a litigant in person. What is important here is that…
EXPERT WATCH 42: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE – BUT A SIMPLE STEP UP FROM “NUMBER CRUNCHING” : ALSO OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Here we have a case where the judge found evidence provided by experts to be of “assistance” but where he was clear in his view that the information put forward was not expert evidence. The evidence was “simply a kind…
COURT ORDER PREVENTS CLAIMANTS FROM SENDING COURT DOCUMENTS TO CERTAIN PARTIES: THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT: THE DEROGATION FROM THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE IS JUSTIFIED
Here we have an unusual order under CPR 31.22 (2) made in unusual circumstances. The claimant was precented from sending documents disclosed to in proceedings, and mentioned in open court, to various specified entities. It is a reminder of the…
PROVING THINGS 283: FAILING TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM FOR PROVISIONAL DAMAGES FOR ONE SET OF SYMPTOMS BUT ESTABLISHING IT IN ANOTHER
There are relatively few judgments in which the law and practice relating to provisional damages are considered in detail. We have such a case here. Further it is an example of the claimant failing to establish provisional damages in relation…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE NEED TO SERVE A NOTICE DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCUMENT: CPR 32.19
Here we look at a case that illustrates a very basic principle of civil procedure and evidence. It is a case where the claimant was, in essence, disputing the authenticity of several documents. However a basic procedural step had not…
You must be logged in to post a comment.