DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON “SPECIALIST” EVIDENCE AS TO LIFE EXPECTANCY: THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED AND CONSIDERED
In Dodds v Arif & Anor [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB) Master Davison refused the defendant’s application to rely on a specialist report in relation to the claimant’s life expectancy. The judgment also contains an important summary of the circumstances in…
FOOTBALL CLUB’S APPLICATION DOES NOT GET EXTRA TIME: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPUTE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS IS REFUSED
In UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt refused Sheffield United’s application for relief from sanctions so as to allow it to dispute the authenticity of documents during the course of a trial. “A…
PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE
In AXO v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1454 (QB) Mrs Justice YIP considered the issue of causation in a clinical negligence case. Liability was admitted but the claimant failed to establish causation. THE CASE The claimant child was…
EXPERT WITNESSES: A CRISIS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS – RECOMMENDED READING FOR ALL LITIGATORS
Matthew Scott’s “Barrister Blogger” blog is always an interesting read. His latest post Expert witnesses: a crisis in the criminal courts is essential reading for everyone involved in any type of litigation – and also for anyone who is an…
THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE
In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD
This blog looked recently at the case of O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 where the trial judge was critical of a jointly instructed expert’s attempt to find facts and state that something was “proven by overwhelming evidence”. That case contains…
THE APPOINTMENT OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT DOES NOT DISPLACE THE TRIAL JUDGE: EXPERTS SHOULD NOT “OVERREACH”
In O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 Mr Recorder Allen QC noted that a Single Joint Expert had gone beyond their remit in making findings of “fact”. The parties do not “abdicate” findings to a single joint experts and the…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (3): THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE
We are returning to the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims”. This time the guidance on the instruction of experts. Remember this guidance is incorporated into the rules. It provides a essential information as…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (2): THE APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE
The importance of the guidance given by the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims” is often overlooked. Not only are few people aware of exist of the guidance, fewer still are aware that it…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (1): GUIDANCE FROM THE LAWYERIST: “MUCH LIKE A COWBOY HERDING CATTLE”
Instructing expert witnesses is an important step in many actions. The advantages, and problems, caused by experts are well known and widely reported recently. This is one of the matters that crosses boundaries and gives rise to common problems across…
WHO IS AN EXPERT? NOW THERE’S A QUESTION: DEFINITIONS OF “EXPERT” CONSIDERED
The collapse of the “carbon credit fraud” prosecution today because an “expert” was found out to have no actual expertise leads to consideration of how exactly the courts define an “expert” . This does not give rise to a straightforward…
PROVING THINGS 153: “YOU DO NOT WIN A CASE ON INCONSISTENCIES”: WHEN THE APPLICANTS “PURSUED A CONFUSED AND POORLY EVIDENCED CASE FOR LITTLE PURPOSE”
Most cases are lost not on issues of law but on issues of evidence. In Stewart & Ors v Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber was particularly scathing of the quality of the applicants’ evidence. The judgment contains…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 47: THE FORMAL (AND MANDATORY) REQUIREMENTS OF A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CHECKLIST
Another short post caused by a discussion on Twitter about the number of witness statements that fail to comply with the most basic, mandatory, obligations in the Rules. The formal requirements of a witness statement are overlooked at the litigator’s…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 45: THE COURT CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL
We are looking at CPR 33.2(3) in relation to the reducing of witnesses or identifying issues prior to trial. THE RULE CPR 32.2(3) “(3) The court may give directions – (a) identifying or limiting the issues to which factual…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 44: JUST DON’T WRITE RUDE THINGS : LANGUAGE THAT IS “FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT SOLICITORS ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW EACH OTHER”
Don’t write rude things. Not even in internal emails or texts. One day it may (and probably will) come back to haunt you. Read the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 1: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR
I have been at the APIL annual conference this week. Ostensibly to give a talk about expert evidence, but a blogger (indeed any practising lawyer) can never miss an opportunity to pick up ideas. I went to a “Fee earner…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE UPHILL BATTLE
In Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 817 Lord Justice Lewison set out a “cut out and keep” guide for parties attempting to appeal findings of fact. A reminder of the uphill battle that appellants…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
This post arises out of a Twitter discussion. Someone was reporting that documents that had been disclosed during the course of ongoing litigation were being put copied onto social media. Is this allowed? THE RULES: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS This is…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)
The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…