SENSIBLE STEPS TO TAKE WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSCRIPT OF A HEARING AVAILABLE
A very short passage in the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Odhavji v Tighe & Ors [2025] EWHC 372 (Ch) sets out the steps a prudent party should take when a transcript (and sometimes a judgment) cannot be obtained. …
EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED
In Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2025] EWHC 272 (KB) HHJ Bird (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered which expert should be accepted in the context of a case against the police. He preferred the expert with…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025
Expert evidence plays a critical, often decisive, role in clinical negligence litigation. An ability to assess expert evidence is a key part of the litigator’s role. This webinar looks at the rules and cases that govern the credibility of expert…
CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE – BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE
I am grateful to Professor Keith Rix for allowing me to use an article that appears in February’s Expert Healthcare Witness Matters*. This deals with the question of whether an expert can, or should, agree to act on a conditional…
WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025
This blog regularly features cases where there have been issues, sometimes major problems, with expert evidence. This webinar takes a close look at the factors that the courts take into account when considering which expert’s view should be accepted. It…
WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT
We have looked at the judgment in Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as Judge of the High Court) before, in the context of the failure of committal proceedings following an earlier finding…
COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN “INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION”: A REPORT WAS “IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE”
In Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected the applicant’s application to rely on expert evidence. The proposed expert report was to “uncertain” and, in any event, unlikely to assist…
OGDEN TABLES UPDATED TO INCLUDE + 0.5% RATE
An updated set of Additional Tables have been added to The Ogden Tables today to include the 0.5% rate that came into force in January. THE UPDATES The updates can be found on this link. … Enjoying this post? Become a…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF IN 2024: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES
As 2024 draws to a close this is a good time to look back at the year in terms of civil procedure. There have been 463 posts to date this year amounting to 938 thousand words (I haven’t counted them…
“PROFESSIONALISM DEMANDS THAT LAWYERS PICK THEIR BATTLES WISELY”: JUDGE GRANTS EXTENSION AND ORDERS THE LAWYERS TO GO TO LUNCH TOGETHER…
Coming to the end of the year, and with Christmas nearly upon us, all lawyers could benefit from reading the judgment of Chief U.S. District Judge David Proctor in McCullers v. Koch Foods of Ala., LLC in 2024 WL 4907226…
JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T ACCEPT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WERE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SAMRAI DECISION
In Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer did not make a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a case where he did not accept the claimants’ evidence. This non-acceptance did not lead to…
AN EXPERT WHO “HAD NO REGARD TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION” AND “WHO WAS PREPARED MATERIALLY TO MISLEAD THE COURT”
In Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer made extremely trenchant findings about the conduct of an expert witness instructed on behalf of the claimants. There was no compliance with Rules or Guidance for…
EXPERTS AND THE COURTS: DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024: “WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL?”: SOME INTERESTING WEBINARS IN THE NEAR FUTURE
Issues relating to expert evidence have formed a large part of the material considered in this blog so far this year. The webinar on the 11th December reviews the key cases and their significance for practitioners and experts alike. Webinars…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: FALSE EVIDENCE: A FALSE CV: “I AM ENTITLED TO REJECT THE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FACTUAL BASIS”
I am grateful to Amy Birchall of HF solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bird in Scully -v- Atherton (& others). The judge found that the claimant (someone who had held a number of jobs…
THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT “ARGUMENTS” SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN
In Norman v N & CJ Horton Property [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) Master Clark found that proposed “expert evidence” was not evidence at all but simply opinions. The person preparing the report was not allowed to give expert evidence on…
COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL
Hot on the heels of publishing the previous post in relation to the judge’s refusal to order a breakdown of the agency fees involved in a medical report I received a copy of a case from Ben Millns of Kennedys. …
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL: STRIKING OUT OF THE ACTION WHEN CLAIMANT DID NOT ATTEND THE PTR OVERTURNED ON APPEAL
The judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Attaei v Alsharif & Ors [2024] EWHC 2972 (KB) is the second case this month where an appeal has been allowed against a refusal to grant an adjournment. In this case, however, the…
LIMITATION, DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS – THE KEY CASES OF 2024: WEBINAR 27th NOVEMBER 2024: HELPING YOU TO AVOID PROBLEMS IN 2O25 (AND BEYOND…)
This webinar looks at the key cases relating to limitation, default and sanctions that have occurred in 2024. The aim is to look at problem areas to help litigators avoid problems in the future. Booking details are available here. THE…
EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT
The Court of Appeal decision in T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 1384 is an appeal in a family court case. It contains important observations in relation to attempts to adduce new evidence at the appeal stage. Equally…
PROVING THINGS 249: CYCLIST FAILS TO PROVE THAT A DEFECTIVE KERBSTONE WAS THE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT: BETTER PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HELP
In Robertson v Cornwall Council [2024] EWHC 2830 (KB) Mr Justice Linden dismissed an appeal in a case where the claimant had failed to establish liability at trial. The trial judge had found that the claimant had not established the…
DEFENDANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH A WHOLE HOST OF ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY:
In Cullen v Henniker-Major [2024] EWHC 2809 (KB) HHJ Ambrose (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) rejected the numerous allegations of fundamental dishonesty made by the defendant against the claimant. The case may be an object lesson in…
CLAIM AGAINST ALLEGEDLY DISHONEST EXPERT NOT STRUCK OUT: THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL
In EUI Ltd (t/a Admiral) v Smith [2024] EWHC 2803 (KB) Mr Justice Griffiths refused an expert’s application to strike out the case against him. He upheld the decision of the Circuit Judge and stated that the issues should go…
PROVING THINGS 248: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY CASE AS TO CAUSATION IN A NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAINST SOLICITORS
In Blower v GH Canfields LLP [2024] EWHC 2763 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) rejected a claimant’s case on negligence against a firm of solicitors who had reached a settlement of an action against her and…
WHEN THE CLAIMANT HAS TO CHANGE JOBS, EARNS MORE THAN BEFORE – BUT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AWARD FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: THE VERY REAL VALUE OF “FRINGE BENEFITS”
A webinar on the 5th November looks at loss of earnings from the point of view of loss of benefits and pension claims. It is important that the very real value of “fringe” benefits is not overlooked when looking at…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW III: PREPARE PROPERLY AND SEE THE SCENE FOR YOURSELF: A VIEW FROM CANADA
As part of the repeated series looking at the advice that judges give to advocates (and how this relates to civil litigators in particular) we return to Canada. Judge Carol Baird Ellan collected the views of 12 of her colleagues…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: A REPEAT ii: “USEFUL, JUST & CHEAP”: GUIDANCE FROM AUSTRALIA
The post I repeated yesterday on Things Lawyers do to Annoy Judges was, without doubt, when first written one of the most publicised and read posts on this blog. I think it was that post that led to the blog…
WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN’T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING…
We have considered the dangers of attempting to use artificial intelligence in litigation before. The use of artificial intelligence in an expert report was considered b Schopf.S in the Surrogate’s Court, Saratoga County, in the “Matter of Weber”. “The mere…
THE DIFFICULT ISSUE OF THE CHILD CLAIMANT AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2024
For many years now I have been researching and writing about the particular problems that face practitioners when they are dealing with a claim by a child who could suffer loss of earnings in the future as a result of…
EXPERTS CAN BE ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION ON MATTERS OF FACT, EVEN WHEN THOSE FACTS ARE ULTIMATELY FOR THE COURT
There is a short passage in the judgment of Master Davison in The Owners of the “Christos Theo” v The Owners of the “Aliki” [2024] EWHC 2106 (Admlty) which deals with an issue rarely considered by the courts – how…
PROVING THINGS 245: A FAILURE TO PROVE A LOSS OF EARNINGS: A CLAIM PUT AT OVER £2 MILLION AND £23,000 AWARDED
In McInerney v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Victimisation) [2024] EAT 158 HHJ James Tayler (in the Employment Appeal Tribunal) dismissed the claimant’s appeal in relation to loss of earnings. The Employment Tribunal had found that the claimant had failed…
SOLICITORS, SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE DUTY TO THE COURT: THREE CASES REVIEWED
The judgment in Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports & Anor (Re Wasted Costs Order) [2024] EWHC 2415 (KB) we looked at last week contained some important observations about the limit of a solicitor’s duty to check their own client’s social media…
AN IDEAL CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR THE LITIGATORS IN YOUR LIFE: MUNKMAN & EXALL ON DAMAGES: 15th EDITION
The latest edition of Munkman and Exall on damages in being published in November this year, obviously it has been cleverly timed to catch the important Christmas market. Details of how to buy the multiple copies you will undoubtedly need…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN CLAIMANT HAD FILED SCHEDULE WHICH WAS MISLEADING ABOUT LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM: THE CLAIMANT COULDN’T HAVE EARNED AND SHOULDN’T HAVE CLAIMED
I am grateful to the barrister Nadia Whittaker for sending me a copy of the judgment handed down today of HHJ Richard Carter in Brown -v- Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Mersey and West Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust….
THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON FOR AN INJUNCTION APPLICATION TO BE HEARD IN PRIVATE OR AN ANONYMITY ORDER GRANTED
In Pump Court Chambers Ltd v Brown (aka Goodfield) [2024] EWHC 2428 (Ch) Charles Morrison (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused an application that an injunction hearing take place in private and the parties have anonymity. “Is…
APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS DISMISSED: NO DUTY TO “DUMP” A CLIENT WHEN FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IS ALLEGED
In Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports & Anor (Re Wasted Costs Order) [2024] EWHC 2415 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed an application for wasted costs against the claimant’s solicitors. This dismissal took place at “stage one” – with the allegations…
AN EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE “CORRUPTED” BY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: “THERE SHOULD BE SOME INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS”
We are returning once again to the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB).We are also returning to the question of expert evidence. There…
WHEN AN EXPERT HAS “LOST ALL INDEPENDENCE AND OBJECTIVITY” – AND ADMITS SO IN COURT
There are many interesting aspects of the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB). Here I want to concentrate upon the judgment relating to…
AN “UNRELIABLE” SCHEDULE LEADS TO A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS BEING STRUCK OUT (AND FOUR WEBINARS ON LOSS OF EARNINGS)
The way in which a claim for loss of earnings claim is presented is of crucial importance in most claims for damages. There are a series of four seminars below where many of the essential elements are considered. A case…
WHEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND ONLINE POSTS UNDERMINE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE: FACEBOOK POSTS ON PLAYING RUGBY ARE FOUND TO BE BINDING
Many cases emphasise the importance of social media in litigation. It has become an essential tool in the armoury of many litigators. An example can be seen in the judge of Mr Justice Mould in Wye Valley NHS Trust v…
FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF NON-ADMISSION UNDER CPR 32.19: WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?
There is much for practitioners to read in the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Taylor v Savik & Anor [2024] EWCC 7. However I want to isolate out the judge’s observations on CPR r.32.19. In particular the question of…
“IN CONTRACT YOU BARGAIN FOR A RESULT”: JUDGE UPHOLDS COMPANY’S CLAIM FOR 20% OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED
I am grateful to Martin Hirst for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Holmes in NC Investigating Services Ltd -v- Crossley (1st March 2024), a copy of which is available here OT APPROVED, MHIRST, H1QZ65P0, NCINVESTIGATION, CROSSLEY,…
CLAIMANT’S (LATE) APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE DISMISSED:”LITIGATION NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED EFFICIENTLY AND AT PROPORTIONATE COST”
In IlliquidX Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2191 (Ch) Chief Master Shuman dismissed the claimant’s application to rely on expert evidence. It was held that the application was made too late and, in any event, not…
THE COUNCIL MUST PAY THE COSTS OF ITS EXPERT’S CHANGE OF MIND: THE DUTY TO TEST THE STRENGTH OF THE CASE WITH AN EXPERT CONSIDERED
There is an interesting consideration of the duties relating to the interplay between lawyer and expert in the judgment of Fordham J in Halton Borough Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and…
“IT IS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE REMIT OF AN EXPERT TO DECIDE WHICH WITNESSES OF FACT HE BELIEVES OR DISBELIEVES”: DEFENDANT’S WITNESS DOES NOT FARE WELL
We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles in Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB). More accurately to the first instance decision which the defendant attempted (unsuccessfully) to appeal. This time in relation to…
A TRIAL BUNDLE THAT WAS A “CHAOTIC MESS”; NON COMPLIANT WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT REPORTS AND “PROCEDURAL TRENCH WARFARE”
There are interesting procedural aspects in the judgment of Simon Gleeson in Carl v Hawkins & Ors [2024] EWHC 2186 (Ch). The case, about historic sports cars, involved (among other things) “procedural trench warfare”; highly defective bundles; non-compliant witness statements;…
VALUATION EXPERTS SHOULD SHOW THEIR CALCULATIONS: ESTIMATING A VALUE AND WORKING BACKWARDS TO JUSTIFY THAT DOES NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT
In Sahota v Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch) HHJ Rawlings (sitting as a High Court Judge)was critical of an expert witness who, in essence, worked backwards in relation to a valuation. The judge found that having come to…
NON-COMPLIANT WITNESS STATEMENTS (AGAIN): THE SOLICITOR’S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WAS “FALSE”:
For the third time this week I find myself writing about judicial criticisms of the way in which witness statements have been prepared. This case has by far the most excoriating comments. In Fulstow & Anor v Francis [2024] EWHC…
PROVING THINGS 240: PROVING THE “EELES” CRITERIA ON AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT: GAPS IN THE EVIDENCE PREVENT A FINAL DETERMINATION BEING MADE
In XS1 (A Child) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2024] EWHC 1865 (KB) Master Stevens adjourned a claimant’s application for a substantial interim payment. The primary ground for this was that there was insufficient evidence before the court to…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ISSUES: CLAIMANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS THE EXTENSIONS OF TIME
The judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Graham v Fidelidade – Companhia De Seguros SA [2024] EWHC 2010 (KB) contains some salutary lessons for litigators. In particular the importance of complying the the rules for applying for extensions of time…
PROVING THINGS 239: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ABLE TO PROVE THE DATE THAT VIDEOS WERE TAKEN
We are looking at one particular factual issue that arose in Wye Valley NHS Trust v Murphy [2024] EWHC 1912 (KB). The applicant Trust was unable to prove the date that various videos were taken. Consequently they were unable to…
You must be logged in to post a comment.