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…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF HAS ITS OWN LINKEDIN PAGE (“ABOUT TIME TOO” – APPARENTLY)
Civil Litigation Brief now has its own LinkedIn page. It is another way of following the posts on this site. Posts will be posted as they are published and it is another way of being able to keep up to…
EXPERT WATCH 41: THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO OVERTURN A DECISION WHERE THE “WRONG” TYPE OF JOINT EXPERT WAS INSTRUCTED
This is an unusual case where, after the event, a party to the litigation argued that the court had relied on the “wrong” type of expert evidence. An educational psychologist had been instructed as a joint expert whereas what was…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 6: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION: STATISTICAL RISK REDUCTION DOES NOT SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Establishing causation is a key element of many clinical negligence cases. Here we have a case where the issue of causation was put in two ways: the “but for” test and alternatively the “indivisible injury” test. The claimant did not…
EXPERT WATCH 40: THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED WITNESS: “THE DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO APPLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND TO FIND THE FACTS HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE…”
This is a case where the judge did not accept the views of a jointly instructed expert as to the authenticity of a document that was central to the case. The expert did not have access to all the relevant…
THE QUESTION OF THE CLAIMANT’S CAPACITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT A LITIGATION FRIEND – THIS DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANT’S POSITION
Here we have a case where a defendant appealed against a decision it agreed with. The judge found that the claimant had capacity and did not require a Litigation Friend. However the defendant’s issue was with the very decision to…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS WITH EXPERT EVIDENCE: WEBINAR 20th MARCH 2026: THE EXPERTS REPORT WAS “ALMOST WORSE THAN USELESS…”
We have seen some graphic examples in the past few weeks of a court robustly rejecting expert evidence adduced on behalf of a claimant. This webinar examines why expert evidence is not accepted, limited, or even wholly rejected at trial….
EXPERT WATCH 39: WHEN THE HOME SECRETARY DID NOT CHALLENGE EXPERT EVIDENCE SHE CANNOT BE THAT SURPRISED WHEN THE COURT ACCEPTS IT
We are looking at another case where a party failed to challenge expert evidence. The Court of Appeal was clear in its view that if fault lay anywhere it was with the appellant’s failure to challenge the expert evidence that…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WITNESS EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2026
We have seen a lot of issues over the years in relation to the drafting of witness statements and presentation of witness evidence. There are many cases that illustrate the problems that arise. This webinar aims to head off those…
EXPERT WATCH 39: BOTH EXPERTS “ACTED AS SURROGATE ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF THEIR INSTRUCTING PARTY”: MORE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT…
We have another High Court decision where the judge was highly critical of the approach of each expert. The judge found that each took on the role of advocate rather than expert. The criticisms are stark “they were similar in…
HOW FAR IS A CIVIL COURT BOUND (IF AT ALL) BY THE CONCLUSIONS IN ANOTHER CIVIL MATTER? THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
Can a judge take into account findings of fact in a “related” civil action? That is the matter being considered here. The judge had to consider whether factual findings as to the employment status of the petitioner in Employment Tribunal…
EXPERT WATCH 37: THE COURT SHOULD MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT FIRST AND NOT ABDICATE THIS TASK TO AN EXPERT: A FIRST INSTANCE DECISION WITH A “FUNDAMENTAL FLAW”
We are looking at a family law case which considers several significant aspects of expert evidence. Firstly it makes clear that it is not for an expert to make findings of fact. Further a judge cannot simply abdicate they key…
EXPERT WATCH 36: THE JUDGE FINDS THAT EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “LITERALLY UNBELIEVABLE” (AND IT GETS WORSE…) “I MEAN, IT IS DISHONEST, FULL STOP”
We are used to seeing judicial criticism of experts on this site. We have an example here of a claimant’s case coming to grief because the judge did not accept her evidence or the evidence of the two experts called…
PROVING THINGS 280: DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE THAT AN ACTION HAD BEEN COMPROMISED: THE TERMS “SUBJECT TO CONTRACT” MEAN THAT ACCEPTANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO A BINDING COMPROMISE
Documents are often marked “subject to contract”. This case considers the practical implications of such markings. In particular whether an apparent acceptance of an agreement gave rise to a binding agreement. As we shall see the wording was found to…
PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS: 193rd UPDATE: CHANGES TO RULES ABOUT DISCLOSURE IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS: THE COURT CAN ORDER A PARTY TO SEEK INSPECTION FROM “ANY PERSON”
There are several amendments in Practice Directions made in the the most recent update. Here we look at one that is directly related to the rule change we looked at last week. The amendment introduces into the Business and Property…
EXPERT WATCH 35: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO ADDUCE A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT AFTER THE TRIAL HAD ENDED
There are many (if not all) working advocates who have thought, after a hearing is over, “I could have said that”. The same may well be true of experts. Here we have an attempt to introduce new material in a…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: “EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”: FEBRUARY 2018
There have been several major issues about the way in which the joint meetings of experts are conducted. This includes the problems that occur when the parties cannot even agree on an agenda for the meeting. This post looked at…
MEMBER NEWS: A REMINDER OF MEMBER BENEFITS AND WHERE TO FIND THE DISCOUNT CODES: ESSENTIAL TOPICS COVERED IN WEBINARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
A reminder that member subscribers have access to discounts on webinars being presented throughout the year. The details of the webinars, the discounts and how to find the discount codes are below. The first webinar sets out the practical consequences…
EXPERT WATCH 34: THE COURT REFUSES TO REPLACE A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BUT ALLOWS SOME OF THE PARTIES TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT
When it is appropriate for a court to replace a jointly instructed expert? That issue was considered in this case. The judge rejected the allegations made about the jointly instructed expert, however given that expert evidence was central to the…
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (2): THE COURT CAN ORDER A PARTY TO REQUEST ANY PERSON TO PRODUCE DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION
We are continuing with our look at the The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 which come into force on the 6th April 2026. Here we look at a totally new provision which gives the court power to order a party to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY i : COURT WOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE “THE PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION DO NOT INCLUDE ENABLING THESE DEFENDANTS TO FISH FOR MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF A CASE THAT IS (i) UNPLEADED (ii) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CASE THAT IS PLEADED”
As you may guess from the title we are looking at witness evidence more than once today. Firstly we are going to look at an argument from the defendants that a claimant’s failure to call witnesses to give evidence meant…
EXPERT WATCH 33: WHEN AN AN EXPERT RELIES ON THE FINDINGS OF A PREVIOUS EXPERT: THIS CAN LEAD TO DIFFICULTIES…
I am grateful to Jim Shepphard solicitor for sending me a copy of this report part of which relates to to the assessment of expert evidence. The claimant’s expert had a problem because their report was based, in part, on…
EXPERT WATCH 32: A REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW AS TO THE INDEPENDENCE (OR OTHERWISE) OF EXPERT WITNESSES
We are looking again at a case looked at yesterday. This is because the judgment contained a useful summary of many leading cases relating to the question of expert bias, or apparent bias. “It is always desirable that an expert…
EXPERT WATCH 31: A PARTY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO RELY ON THE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE WHO WAS CONFLICTED: THE EXPERT CANNOT “MARK THEIR OWN HOMEWORK”
This is an interesting example of a judge refusing a party permission to rely on an expert witness because they were conflicted. They had been involved in the issues previously and could not give independent or disinterested advice. “Ms…
WHEN DOCUMENTS WERE CHANGED AFTER THE EVENT: “THEY ARE FALSE AND WERE INTENDED TO DEFLECT BLAME”: SOME POINTS FOR LITIGATORS TO REMEMBER IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR CASES ON AN EVEN KEEL…
Many the cases which consider and give guidance on witness credibility stress the importance of contemporary documents. However what happens when the “contemporary” documents have been re-written after the event? Litigations should be alive to that possibility. Here we look…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THIRD PARTIES AT COURT: NO NOTICE NECESSARY…
Is a third party, with no relationship to the case, entitled to see the witness statements being used in the hearing? That is the issue considered in this case which, unusually, was an application for judicial review of a County…
EXPERT WATCH 29: THE JUDGE IS WARY OF A CLINICAL EXPERT WHO IS “HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF LITIGATION”
There have been a number of cases in recent years where judges have been wary (sometimes highly sceptical) of expert witnesses who make their living solely from being involved in litigation. We have another example here. There is no indication…
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 6: EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025: CASES ON THIS BLOG
I am surprised (but perhaps shouldn’t be) at the sheer number of cases involving experts that the blog has covered this year. In July I started the “Expert Watch” series to focus on cases about the conduct of experts and…
EXPERT WATCH 28: I CAN’T GIVE PERMISSION FOR AN EXPERT BECAUSE THIS IS SIMPLY NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE: FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT DOESN’T GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES…
The judge here held that the report prepared by a forensic accountant was not, in fact, an expert’s report. The report well be helpful, but its contents did not come within the meaning of “expert evidence”. Further insofar as the…
A BREACH OF “PURDAH” OBLIGATIONS WHEN A WITNESS IS GIVING EVIDENCE: MISGUIDED BUT NOT DISHONEST
This is a brief reminder of the importance of the obligations of a witness not to communicate with others (including their own legal team) whilst in the course of giving evidence. “This was obviously ill-advised but I accept that, by…
WHEN CAN ADVERSE FINDINGS ABOUT A WITNESS IN A CASE BE APPEALED? THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE ISSUES
It is not unusual for trial judges to be critical of the conduct or evidence of a witness in a case. What should a witness do if the judgment is critical of them? Do they have a right of anonymity? …
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 5: ANOTHER CASE OF “WHAT WAS SAID?” AND “WHY WASN’T THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN THE MEDICAL NOTES?”
Here we have a clinical negligence case with a familiar issue. The trial depended on whose account the judge accepted of what was said in a particular medical consultation several years earlier. The treating doctor can, in reality, remember little…
EXPERT WATCH 27 : WHAT DOES THE COURT DO WHEN AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION HAS BEEN COVERTLY RECORDED? “I HOPE HE WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN…”
Covert recordings, of one type or another, are featuring heavily on this blog today. Here we consider a case where a claimant secretly recorded her examination by an expert instructed by the defendant. The claimant then applied to admit the…
WHAT IS THE COURT TO DO WHEN A PARTY ALLEGES THAT A DOCUMENT IS A FORGERY BUT HAS NOT SERVED NOTICE UNDER CPR 32.19?
Here we look at very useful observations as to the approach of the court when at trial it becomes clear that a party is alleging a document is forged, or not authentic, but that party has not served a notice…
EXPERT WATCH 26: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ADMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: “IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT VALUE IT WOULD ADD TO THE CASE”
It is rare to see an appeal where a decision about whether to admit expert evidence is considered. In this case the Court of Appeal considered the judge’s decision not to admit a report. Both parties agreed that the report…
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS, CONTINUING BREACHES AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL
This is a judgment which anyone with responsibility for running a legal department, or in a position where “the buck stops here” should read. The Court of Appeal judgment is clear, and damning, in relation to the conduct involved, albeit…
EXPERT WATCH 25: EXPERT IN ELECTION CASE FAILS TO GET THE JUDGES’ VOTE: THE EXPERT SHOULD BE SENT (AND CONSIDER) CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE
There are not many cases where issues relating to expert evidence are considered in an Election Court. We have such a case here. The Court allowed expert evidence to be admitted. However it was unable to give any weight to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHAT SHOULD A JUDGE DO WHEN THE FACTS ARE DISPUTED BUT WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE?
What is a judge to do if there is a dispute as to the facts but neither party calls evidence and there is no cross-examination? That is the question considered here. (How can a judge determine which witness is correct…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN ROAD TRAFFIC CASES: DO ALL ROADS LEAD TO FROOM? WEBINAR 19th NOVEMBER 2025
Issues relating to contributory negligence often play a large part in road traffic cases. This webinar looks at the case law and guidance in relation to the key issues that often arise. Booking details are available here. (A failure to wear…
COST BITES 309: ISSUES OF SECURITY FOR COSTS CONSIDERED IN A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT : WITH IMPORTANT POINTERS HERE FOR ALL SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATIONS: “I AM NOT PREPARED TO DECIDE THIS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE”)
We are looking at an application relating to security for costs in the context of a solicitor and own client assessment. However, as the heading indicates, there are more general lesson here for all litigators. In particular the need to…
THE SOLICITOR AND THE STING OPERATION (3): THE AGENCY THAT CARRIED OUT A STING OPERATION ON A (RETIRED) JUDGE, AMONG OTHERS…
If you think that the account of enquiry agents carrying out a sting operation on the other side’s solicitor is remarkable then sit down for a while. That judgment also reveals that (in wholly unrelated proceedings) the agency in question…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: THE LAW, PRACTICE AND SPECIAL CASES: WEBINAR 17th NOVEMBER 2025
You may be reading this for the second time – but it may be partly your own fault.… This webinar looks at the law relating to contributory negligence, the legislation and the key cases. Booking details are available here. …
EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025: THE CASES (AND THE LESSONS) CONSIDERED IN A WEBINAR ON THE 20th NOVEMBER 2025
This has been quite a year for experts in the courts. All kinds of mistakes and errors have been reported upon. These are expensive issues for litigants and sometimes for the experts involved. This webinar looks at cases relating to…
COURT CONSIDERS APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE MADE ON THE THIRD DAY OF THE TRIAL: “THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANY MONTHS BEFORE…”
It is unusual for an application for further disclosure, particularly extensive disclosure, to be made part way through a trial. The judge considered such an application in this case. This led to the obvious question – why wasn’t this application…
EXPERT WATCH 24: WHEN AN EXPERT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE “BOLAM” TEST (WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THEIR OWN REPORT)THIS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE: BUT IT DOESN’T HELP
This is not the first time we have looked at a case where an expert in a clinical negligence has revealed in cross-examination that they do no really understand the “Bolam” test for negligence. We look at such a case…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: HOW JUDGES DECIDE CIVIL CASES: “JUDGES ARE HUMAN. THEY DO NOT POSSESS SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
This week we are looking at a judgment that sets out in detail the process by which judges determine issues in a civil case. Ranging from the burden and standard of proof , the role of judges, the fallibility of…
You must be logged in to post a comment.