Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Expert credibility
COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

May 27, 2020 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Today we are looking back at the case of Hirtenstein -v- Hill Dickinson LLP [2014]  EWHC 2711 (Comm)  contains many interesting lessons for those involved in professional negligence litigation in particular.   Here I just want to concentrate upon two:…

CIVIL LITIGATION CASE OF THE YEAR: BATES -v- THE POST OFFICE: LITIGATING IN THE FACE OF "INSTITUTIONAL PARANOIA"

CIVIL LITIGATION CASE OF THE YEAR: BATES -v- THE POST OFFICE: LITIGATING IN THE FACE OF “INSTITUTIONAL PARANOIA”

December 27, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

There was never any doubt in my mind as to the civil litigation case of the year –  Bates -v- The Post Office.   All civil litigation  is here, witness and expert evidence, allegations of bias, disclosure and much more.  One…

THE WITNESS WHOSE STATEMENT WAS "SOMEWHAT FICTIONAL": EXCELLENT EXPERTS WHO ROSE ABOVE THE FRAY

THE WITNESS WHOSE STATEMENT WAS “SOMEWHAT FICTIONAL”: EXCELLENT EXPERTS WHO ROSE ABOVE THE FRAY

December 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

There are several aspects of the judgment in JAH v Burne & Ors [2018] EWHC 3461 (QB) that are of interest to civil litigators.  Firstly it is another example of a case where the claimant’s witness statement was not accepted (at…

EXPERT WATCH: AN EXPERT WHO "SIGNALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS BASIC DUTIES AS AN EXPERT"

EXPERT WATCH: AN EXPERT WHO “SIGNALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS BASIC DUTIES AS AN EXPERT”

March 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Brilliant though it is the Secret Barrister’s book has not tempted me to write about criminal law. However it is always worthwhile keeping a weather eye on the behaviour and conduct of experts.   Problems with experts are very similar across…

AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS "EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE": THIS DOESN'T END WELL

AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”: THIS DOESN’T END WELL

September 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Problems caused by expert witnesses feature heavily on this blog. I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which contains robust…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.