AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: BUNDLES, WITNESSES AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL: WEBINAR ON 29th MAY 2026: IT MAY BE A WHOLE BUNDLE OF FUN
In Serra -v- Harvey [2024], wasted costs were ordered on an indemnity basis against the claimant’s solicitors because the lateness and condition of the trial bundles. The bundles were described as “haphazard”. This is just one of numerous posts on…
THE COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED “LATE”: THE CRUCIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN “IN TIME” AND “OUT OF TIME” APPLICATIONS TO EXTEND TIME
I am grateful to Barrister Simon Brindle for sending me a copy of the judgment of this Court of Appeal judgment given yesterday. It relates primarily to the major distinction between an application made “ahead” of time and one made…
EXPERT WATCH 47: AN EXPERT CANNOT OMIT MATTERS FROM THEIR REPORT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY COULD EXPLAIN THEM WHEN QUESTIONED: “THIS BELIED A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE OBLIGATIONS UPON A CPR COMPLIANT REPORT”
Here we have a very short post on a very significant matter. That is the circumstances in which an expert can miss out the limitations of the data in their report on the basis that they could explain this when…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
When looking at previous posts we are looking for issues that remain relevant today. This case, about the conduct of experts and their interaction with lawyers, remains highly pertinent. The judge held that the breaches were so severe that the…
WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
We don’t normally look at the same case twice in the same day. However this particular judgment needs looking at from different angles. The previous post looked at the case from the point of view of the pleadings. However the…
EXPERT WATCH 46: GUIDANCE AS TO THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION: (BUT SOMETHING FOR ALL OF US TO TAKE AWAY…)
The guidance given in this case is obviously of interest to those who practice in the Court of Protection (as practitioner or expert). However some of the points made here are of general interest. In particular in relation to the…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST…
Here we are looking at a basic requirement that is often overlooked. When a party is applying for permission to rely on expert evidence there is a mandatory obligation to provide the court with an estimate of costs. THE…
PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
No sooner was the (metaphorical) ink dry on the previous post about loss of earnings when I received a useful case from David Platt KC. It is a judgment that contains much of interest to litigators (that we will return…
EXPERT WATCH 44: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EVIDENCE OF ONE EXPERT OVER ANOTHER: IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT…
Here we have a case where success for the claimant rested almost wholly on their expert evidence being accepted. This is not altogether unusual for a clinical negligence case. What is notable about this case is that the treating doctor…
EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
The previous post on costs and mediation led to me to look at the initial judgment on liability. This is because the court considered an argument that the situation with the claimant’s expert was so poor as to warrant indemnity…
“GUIDE, MENTOR AND FRIEND”: REVIEW OF THE APIL GUIDE TO CATASTROPHIC INJURY CLAIMS 4th EDITION: STUART McKECHNIE KC (AND A FORMIDABLE TEAM): THE “LITTLE GEM” THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
The fundamental question for a reviewer of a legal text is – is this book worthwhile? Here there is only one answer. A book of considerable importance, assistance and utility is a “must buy”. HOW DO I SUMMARISE THIS? Sir…
AN “EXTERNAL” REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
We have, for many years now, been looking at the way in which the courts consider the admissibility of reports prepared for related purposes. We have that issue considered in this case. A report was obtained in relation to allegations…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.