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…
DECISION TODAY IN RELATION TO RECOVERABILITY AND ASSESSMENT OF FEES CHARGED BY MEDICAL REPORTING ORGANISATIONS: ANOTHER ROUND IN A VERY LONG WAR…
We are looking at another round in the ongoing “costs of medical reporting organisations” series of battles. As the judge anticipated this may well not be the last round. Here I provide a brief summary of the conclusions. A more…
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…
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…
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…
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…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: EXPERT EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS (ALLOWED IN PART): ADVOCACY AND ARGUMENT – HAD TO GO
We are looking at a case where the sole issue the court was considering was the question of whether passages in the witness statements provided by the claimant were admissible. Unusually the Competition Appeal Tribunal allowed parts of the statements…
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…
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…
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…
EXPERT WATCH 30 : WHEN THE EXPERTS REPORT ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS: IT WAS APPARENT THAT SOMETHING HADE WRONG WITH THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE
Here we have problems with the way in which handwriting experts were instructed. The difficulty being that different experts were given different documents. This led to difficulties at trial. However, ultimately, it did not favour the defendants. The judge was…
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…
COST BITES 317: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL AGENCY FEES/BREAKDOWN BATTLE: THE AGENCY MUST PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN
Here we have another case in the long-running battle over the disclosure of agency fees. I am grateful to Claire Kewin from Keoghs solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment and for her summary of its practical implications…
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…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 42: THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A “DENIAL”: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE CASE WAS PLEADED
This is the first of two interesting cases today that have been sent in by readers. I am grateful to Rebecca McVety of the Dental Law Partnership for sending me this judgment which deals with pleadings, in particular the very…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
EXPERT WATCH 23: NOW THINGS GET EVEN MORE REMARKABLE: EXPERT WRITES TO THE COURT TO SAY “MY EVIDENCE WAS WRONG”: REGULATORY BODY THINKS THE REPORT WAS VERY WRONG…
The previous post recorded how it is still possible to be surprised by what goes on in litigation. We see that again here, but to a greater extent. After a trial and a judgment was given an expert wrote to…
EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF…
No matter how long, and how much, you write about civil procedure cases can still come along which surprise – if not astonish. We have such a case here. The judge found that, essentially, it was the client who played…
MEMBER NEWS: UPDATE ON THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINAR SERIES: THIS SITE WILL BE OFFLINE FOR AN HOUR ON THE 29th OCTOBER
There are two pieces of news. Firstly the site is having a short “rest” on the 29th October, this is only for an hour – but it will be back newly invigorated. Secondly a reminder of some of the webinars…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.