EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND “WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION”
Here we look at a judgment about medical evidence in a personal injury action. The issue was one of causation – whether an earlier injury to the claimant’s leg “caused” a later decision to have that leg amputated. The critique…
EXPERT WATCH 20: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE INSTRUCTIONS TO A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT
Here we are looking at a case where there was an issue as to the instructions given, or to be given, to a single joint expert. The judge set out the basis upon which such experts are instructed and the…
EXPERT WATCH 18: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SIGHT OF DEFENDANT’S DRAFT REPORT – REFERRED TO IN DEFENCE AND THE REPORT OF ANOTHER EXPERT
Here we look at a claimant’s applications under CPR 31.14(1) and 35.10 to have sight of a draft expert report that the defendant had referred to in a defence and in the report of another expert. The judgment contains a…
EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
It is rare for there to be a detailed consideration of the principles relating to whether expert evidence is necessary, admissible or desirable. There is a detailed consideration of the principles here, combined with some clear observations on the necessity…
PROVING THINGS 270: DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE A FAILURE TO MITIGATE LOSS: NO MARKET FOR REJECTED HOSPITAL GOWNS
The burden of proving a failure to mitigate loss lies on the party alleging it. It is a case that has to be pleaded. Once pleaded then the case has to be proven. Here we look at a case where…
EXPERT WATCH 16: IS PART 35 PERMISSION NEEDED WHEN A DOCTOR GIVES OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO A PARTY’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN LITIGATION?
Here we look at a case where a party was seeking a stay of litigation on medical grounds. Medical evidence was provided which supported the litigant’s stance. The claimant took objection to the report as it contained “opinion” and the…
EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT “PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY” BY THE COURT
We are looking at a case where expert evidence was of considerable importance. The claimants had already had permission to rely upon one of their experts disallowed because of issues relating to conduct. Here we have an example of the…
EXPERT WATCH 14: THERE WERE “TOO MANY IMPONDERABLES” TO FORM A VIEW THAT THE INJURIES WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED IF A CAR HAD BEEN DRIVEN AT A LOWER SPEED
The judge in this case considered whether the medical evidence established that driving at a lower speed would have “significantly reduced” the injuries that the claimant suffered. This is often a difficult matter to prove. (The evidence on whether…
EXPERT WATCH 13: “IT SUGGESTS THE WITNESS WAS SEEKING TO BUILD A CASE FOR THE CLAIMANTS RATHER THAN INDEPENDENTLY ANALYSE THE EVIDENCE IN REACHING HIS OPINION”: THE JUDGE FINDS THIS TROUBLING
Here we are looking a judicial observations about the role of forensic reconstruction experts. There are telling comments on the reasons the judge preferred one expert over another. Again it comes down to a simple failure to consider and apply…
UPDATED VERSION OF THE CHANCERY GUIDE: A USEFUL LINK
The Chancery Guide was updated earlier this month. Here we look at the Practice Note and have a link to the updated Guide itself. FINDING THE LINK The Practice Note that accompanies it gives a link to the Guide itself…
EXPERT WATCH 13: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE A NEW CASE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT (HOW DO WE THINK THIS WENT?)
We are looking at a case where the claimant’s expert, belatedly, accepted that the reports he was relying on were unreliable. The claimant then attempted to introduce new matters and evidence to bolster an alternative case. The judge rejected that…
THREE WEBINARS ON EXPERTS: THE JOINT EXPERT AND MEETING OF EXPERTS; PART 35 QUESTIONS AND EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025
The way in which the “Expert Watch” series has quickly developed shows that issues relating to expert evidence continue to give rise to problems. These three webinars explore many of the major issues in relation to experts. Dealing with the…
THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: EX-SOLDIER FAILS IN HER CASE AND NOW NO LONGER HAS THE PROTECTION OF QOCS
Here we look at a case where the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest. The judge commented on the irony of the fact that she had a substantial claim for damages, even without that dishonesty. Nevertheless the evidence of…
EXPERT WATCH 12: “THE EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR BOTH SIDES HAD PROBLEMS”: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT
We look here at an unusual set of facts relating to the judge’s assessment of expert evidence. Firstly the judge found that the claimant’s expert had no real experience of the specific issue in question in the action; she also…
EXPERT WATCH 11: EXPERT ASSERTS THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS MALINGERING BUT WOULDN’T TELL THE COURT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE TESTS THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION
We have seen some unusual conduct of experts on this site. However the case we look at today has elements that we have not looked at before. An expert carried out tests on the claimant and, as a result of…
ANOTHER BATTLE IN THE MEDICAL AGENCY/BREAKDOWN OF COSTS WAR: SHOULD THE COURT ORDER A BREAKDOWN PRIOR TO ANY ASSESSMENT?
There have been numerous cases on the issue of whether there is a requirement to provide a breakdown of the invoice when an expert report has been provided via an agency. Here we another another judgment that considers the issue. …
EXPERT WATCH 10: CLAIMANT UNSUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL IN ATTEMPTING TO OVERTURN THE TRIAL JUDGE’S PREFERENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: “THE IRREDUCIBLE FACT IS IS THAT THE JUDGE ACCEPTED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT’S KEY WITNESS AND PREFERRED TO OVER THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT’S KEY EXPERT WITNESS”
There are relatively few cases where a party appeals on the basis that trial judge was wrong to accept the evidence of one party’s expert witness in preference to the other. There are even fewer cases where such an appeal…
EXPERT WATCH 9: FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL AND TO INFORM THE EXPERTS OF THE DEFENDANT’S CASE COULD RENDER THE EVIDENCE “USELESS”: AN EXPENSIVE DAY OUT FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS…
Here we look at a decision not about the conduct of experts but the way in which the experts were instructed and failure to comply with pre-action protocols. On the face of it this is a decision of major importance…
EXPERT WATCH 8: “SCIENCE DOES NOT CHANGE” : EVIDENCE THAT WAS “UNIMPRESSIVE IN PARTS AND OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT”
To end the week I am looking at another decision about expert witnesses (it has been a theme this week). This time we are looking at accident reconstruction experts. One expert was found wanting, the judge favoured the other. The…
EXPERT WATCH 7: “THIS CASE IS NOT SHORT OF ADVOCATES”: AN EXPERT REPORTING FOR THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM: FURTHER THEY SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THAT THEY HAD “COPIED” THEIR REPORT
Yesterday I imposed a 24 hour respite on this series “unless something really interesting comes up”. I have broken that promise, it lasted 22 hours. However the cases on experts keep coming in and, I think, readers need to know…
EXPERT WATCH 5: AN EXPERT SHOULD DISCLOSE PREVIOUS CRITICISMS MADE BY JUDGES: PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED ABOUT THIS BEFORE…
We have seen a trend in a number of recent cases of advocates cross examining experts and referring to judicial criticism made in previous cases that experts have been involved in. The judgment here goes one further and indicates that…
EXPERT WATCH 4: THE EXPERT SHOULD INFORM THE COURT IF MEMBERSHIP OF A PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION HAD CEASED, PARTICULARLY IF THIS IS LINKED TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM
We are returning (and not for the last time) to a recent decision where the court considered the expert evidence in detail. Here we look at the judgment in relation to an expert who failed, until prompted, to inform the…
EXPERT WATCH 3: EVIDENCE FROM EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: SOME OF THE EXPERTS FOUND WANTING
Here we are looking at a judge’s assessment of witnesses who gave evidence as to foreign law. Some of the witnesses were found to be less then helpful. (This case appears to have taken up several months of court time….
EXPERT WATCH 2: THE EXPERT WHO REPORTED WITHOUT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO HAND AND THEN WOULD NOT RECOGNISE HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE
Here we look at a case where an expert reported without having all the relevant evidence to hand. In fact he only saw the claimant’s witness statements a few days before the trial. This, added to other issues, led to…
EXPERT WATCH 1: THE DUTY TO STATE THE SOURCES OF THE EXPERT’S INFORMATION
This is the start of a series examining cases where expert evidence is considered by the courts. As matters stand there are already dozens of posts on this site where the conduct of experts has been considered (and often criticised)…
WHEN A PARTY RELIES ON “NON PART 35 COMPLIANT” EXPERT REPORTS: THIS IS HARDLY LIKELY TO CARRY MUCH WEIGHT…
The first question the lawyer must ask when being presented with a report for use in proceeding is – is this report CPR 35 compliant? If it is not then it may have little, if any value. There is a…
MEMBER NEWS: MORE ON THE “BACK CATALOGUE 2”: THE FIRST 100 POSTS ON “PROVING THINGS”: “IF YOU DON’T PROVE IT YOU DON’T GET IT”
The “Proving things” series has proven to be very resilient and very long lasting. It started in February 2016 and, as of today, there are 267 posts under this heading. More often than the matters covered relate to “not proving…
IF A CLAIMANT ISSUES AND LITIGATES WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE CAPACITY – ARE THEY LIABLE FOR THE COSTS INCURRED? COURT OF APPEAL SCRUTINISES EXPERT EVIDENCE AND FINDS IT WANTING
Yesterday we looked at issues relating to the capacity of a solicitor’s client and their consequent liability to pay costs. Today we look at a case about inter partes costs. If a claimant brings proceedings but does not, in fact,…
WHEN A PARTY MAKES A SECOND APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT WITNESS HOW SHOULD THE COURT RESPOND? THE SAGA CONTINUED
We are looking at this case for the third time. There were issues in relation to witness evidence and expert evidence. The problems continued after trial when the judge realised that neither party had addressed her on a mandatory requirement…
IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITICISE AN EXPERT THIS MUCH YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING: HIGH COURT REJECTS EACH PARTY’S ATTACKS ON OPPONENT’S EXPERTS
We have seen plenty of cases where the courts have not been slow in their criticism of expert witnesses. Here we have a different situation where the judge was critical of the attacks, by each party, on the credibility of…
HOW FAR IS A TRIAL JUDGE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE VIEWS OF A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT? WELL – READ THIS FOR SOME TRENCHANT VIEWS…
When the parties jointly instruct an expert how far is the judge “bound” by the views that the expert reaches? This is an issue we are looking at for the second time within 6 days. We have an interesting consideration…
WHEN THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT REPORT IS OF “LITTLE OR NO” ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT: A CASE IN POINT
The courts encourages the use of jointly instructed experts However this does not mean that the case, or even key issues in the case, are necessarily determined by those experts. Here we have a case where the judge held that…
WHICH EXPERT WITNESS IS GOING TO BE PREFERRED? ONE EXPERT TOOK AN “UNREALISTIC APPROACH”
Knowing the reasons why a judge may prefer the evidence of one expert over another is an important part of a litigator’s skill. Each case is, of course, fact specific, but there are clear trends that can be discerned. Here…
SHOULD A PARTY BE ABLE TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT WHEN THEY DISAGREE WITH THE REPORT OF A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
Here we are looking at a case where a party, dissatisfied with the approach of a jointly instructed expert, applied to the court for permission to instruct their own expert. The judgment contains a useful summary of the relevant principles….
PART 35 QUESTIONS TO EXPERTS A POINT ABOUT THE CASE LAW: HOW FAR CAN THE QUESTIONS GO? A CLOSE LOOK AT THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN MUTCH
The previous post about when experts should be called to give evidence also contained a consideration of the nature of questions that can be put to experts. One of my colleagues has suggested that the summary relating to the questioning…
WHEN SHOULD PARTIES BE ALLOWED TO CALL EXPERT WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED (IN THE FAMILY COURT)
When should the courts permit experts to give evidence at trial? There are few cases on this topic and today we are looking at a decision in the family courts. The case is relevant to civil practitioners in that it…
YOU SPENT £1.2 MILLION ON EXPERTS AND IT WAS MAINLY MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN: DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO RECOVER 20% OF FEES INCURRED
Sometimes you have to go looking for a pun as a headline for a blog post. Often they simply write themselves. In a case involving water companies who spent £1.2 million on experts, this was one of these cases. The…
EXPERTS IN COURT: “TRESPASSING ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION” AND “SEEKING TO ADVOCATE” ON BEHALF OF PARTY: THIS RARELY ENDS WELL…
There is no shortage of posts on this blogs where judges are critical of expert witnesses. Today we look at another such case where the judge found the expert’s approach “concerning” and went on to state that the expert was…
AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: PROTECTING THE CLIENT AND PROTECTING YOURSELF: WEBINAR 29th MAY 2025
“We go back through your claim in fine detail and if we find that your previous solicitor wasn’t thorough enough and your claim was mishandled, we’ll squeeze out all the compensation that you’re entitled to, getting you more money, and…
THE COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPERT EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUE A TERM IN AN AGREEMENT: AN EXPERT CANNOT BE USED TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT
Is an expert needed to construe a contractual agreement. Here we have a case where the Master was very much against the applicant who sought permission to rely on an expert. An expert was not needed to report on market…
EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE RISKS OF “ANCHORING”: THE EXPERT “GAVE THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ARGUE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE”
Today we are looking at a case where the judge had considerable reservations about expert evidence called on behalf of a claimant. Not all the problems that occurred were the fault of the expert. However she was the third expert…
THE ROLE OF LEADING COUNSEL IN RELATION TO EXPERT REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: A CLIENT CAN PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THESE COSTS WILL NOT BE RECOVERABLE INTER PARTES
How far should leading counsel, or counsel generally, be involved in the preparation of expert reports and witness statements? One obvious reply is “not at all”, given that the evidence should come from the expert or witness. These issues were…
THE RICS PRACTICE ALERT ON ACTING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN HOUSING DISREPAIR AND OTHER HIGH VOLUME CASES: OF INTEREST TO ALL EXPERTS (AND THOSE WHO INSTRUCT THEM)
The RICS has produced a Practice Alert aimed specifically at those acting as expert witnesses in housing disrepair and other high volume cases. It some ways the Alert is surprising in that it says nothing new, that is most of…
EXPERT REPORTS AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED IN THE COURTS AGAIN: LEADS TO A DOCTOR BEING ERASED FROM THE REGISTER OF DOCTORS
The judgment in Moodliar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 913 (Admin) provides a salutary reminder to medical experts that giving expert evidence is a highly significant task. Failures in the process can lead to erasure from the medical register,…
PROVING THINGS 260: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT ON ADVERSE INFERENCES: “WE REJECT THIS NEW WAY OF PUTTING THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CASE”
I am grateful to David Platt KC for drawing my attention to the Court of Appeal decision in Alexander Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 467, in particular to the judgment in relation to adverse inferences. The Court of…
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
In Sarah Jane Young v John Anthony Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177 the Court of Appeal sent out another reminder that there are difficulties in trial judges attempting to override the views of expert witnesses. “… in the circumstances…
EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025
I am giving a webinar for the Steve Cornforth Consultance on the 14th May 2025. It is aimed at housing lawyers and aims to have a comprehensive look at the rules, guidance and cases on the use of experts in…
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE “EXPERT EVIDENCE” FROM THE CLAIMANT’S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE…
We are returning to the judgment of Jason Beer KC Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC and staying with the issue of “expert” evidence. This time looking at the attempt of…
PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT
In Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC dismissed the claimant’s application that forensic accountants give evidence at trial. The experts had basically agreed that there were issues of fact to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS “APPALLING”: ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS “TERRIFYING”
In LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 HHJ Kathryn Major (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) was severely critical of the medical evidence called by the local authority. That part of the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.