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 evidence » Page 5
THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CONSTRUE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES AFTER BREXIT:  HOW THE COURT WORKS WITH "ONE OR BOTH HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK"

THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CONSTRUE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES AFTER BREXIT: HOW THE COURT WORKS WITH “ONE OR BOTH HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK”

June 16, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Brexit, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Greenaway v Parrish & Ors [2021] EWHC 1506 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the “nightmare position” the courts are now in as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to interpreting European Directives.   This…

NO NEED TO CALL CLAIMANT'S MEDICAL EXPERT IN A FAST TRACK TRIAL: MUST BE A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE NORMAL PROCEDURE

NO NEED TO CALL CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL EXPERT IN A FAST TRACK TRIAL: MUST BE A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE NORMAL PROCEDURE

June 9, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Claire Haley from Aegis Legal for sending me a copy of the judgement of HHJ Freedman in Taylor -v- TUI UK Limited (County Court at Newcastle 22nd January 2021).  The judge overturned a decision that the…

LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS "NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT"

LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT”

May 27, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Over the years we have seen some biting judgments about the conduct of experts in civil litigation.  I struggle to recall one as extraordinary as the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in  Dana UK AXLE Ltd v Freudenberg FST…

A PERSON GIVING EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS AND PENSION MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE AN EXPERT: COURT CONSIDERS THE ISSUES

A PERSON GIVING EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS AND PENSION MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE AN EXPERT: COURT CONSIDERS THE ISSUES

May 6, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

Returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cavangh in  TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2021] EWHC 1179 (QB) the judge considered, but did not decide, whether statements from third parties as to earnings and pensions were…

THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WHEN A JUDGE HAS LIMITED THE SCOPE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP A GOOD IMAGE

THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WHEN A JUDGE HAS LIMITED THE SCOPE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP A GOOD IMAGE

April 12, 2021 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Another aspect of the judgement of Master Davison in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) was a decision in relation to expert evidence.  The Master refused the claimant’s application to rely on amended medical reports.   Those reports…

EXPERTS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: A REVIEW OF THE RULES AND CASES: HOW EXPERTS CAN AVOID HITTING THE NET

EXPERTS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: A REVIEW OF THE RULES AND CASES: HOW EXPERTS CAN AVOID HITTING THE NET

April 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

An earlier post looked at the decision of Mr Justice Mostyn in Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762.  Part of that judgment dealt with the duties of experts to disclose an interest they have in the case.  This…

EXPERT WITNESSES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DECISION TO ERASE DOCTOR FROM RECORD BECAUSE OF HIS CONDUCT AS AN EXPERT WITNESS

EXPERT WITNESSES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DECISION TO ERASE DOCTOR FROM RECORD BECAUSE OF HIS CONDUCT AS AN EXPERT WITNESS

March 31, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Every litigator and, particularly, every expert witness should have a very close read of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762.  Although it is a decision in the administrative court it…

JUDGE REFUSES TO RECONSIDER CRITICISMS OF EXPERT WITNESS IN A JUDGMENT: EXPERT DUTIES CANNOT BE DELEGATED

JUDGE REFUSES TO RECONSIDER CRITICISMS OF EXPERT WITNESS IN A JUDGMENT: EXPERT DUTIES CANNOT BE DELEGATED

December 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics UK Ltd (t\a MYLAN) [2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat) Mr Justice Marcus Smith made some observations about the role of the expert witness and the importance of their evidence being criticised in…

CIVIL PROCEDURE ROUND UP: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP: NOVEMBER 2020

CIVIL PROCEDURE ROUND UP: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP: NOVEMBER 2020

December 5, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

This round up covers specific posts and articles in relation to civil procedure from November 2020. COSTS ACL – Lacuna identified in criminal legal aid rules for civil committal proceedings ACL – QOCS does not apply to pre-issue applications, court rules ACL…

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND TOO COSTLY

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND TOO COSTLY

December 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

It must be disheartening  for parties who get to trial to find that the judge does not think that the “experts” they have  instructed (at great cost) are not regarded by the courts as experts at all.  This is exactly…

WHY AN EXPERT WITNESS MUST EXAMINE THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: WHY MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NORMALLY THE KEY

November 27, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

There  are several short passages in the judgment of HHJ Baucher in Ali v The Home Office [2020] EW Misc 27 (CC) which emphasises the need for expert witnesses to consider the objective evidence before reporting.   It also shows the…

A "LACK OF OBJECTIVITY" IN AN EXPERT'S APPROACH: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CAUSATION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

A “LACK OF OBJECTIVITY” IN AN EXPERT’S APPROACH: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CAUSATION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

October 30, 2020 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Leach v North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 2914 (QB) HHJ Freedman (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) made some telling observations about the lack of objectivity of the defendant’s expert. THE CASE The claimant…

EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: THE TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT OVERTURN CONCLUSIONS OF A "UNCONTROVERTED" EXPERT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: THE TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT OVERTURN CONCLUSIONS OF A “UNCONTROVERTED” EXPERT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

August 20, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

NB THIS DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL.  THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT IS CONSIDERED HERE. In Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)  Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the question of the approach of…

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE BECOMES REDUNDANT:  "WE DO NOT HAVE TRIAL BY EXPERT IN THIS COUNTRY: WE HAVE TRIAL BY JUDGE"

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE BECOMES REDUNDANT: “WE DO NOT HAVE TRIAL BY EXPERT IN THIS COUNTRY: WE HAVE TRIAL BY JUDGE”

August 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

There is an interesting judgment on expert evidence at Domeney v Rees & Ors [2020] EWHC 2115 (QB), where Master Davis considered whether accident reconstruction evidence was necessary in relation to a trial.   “We do not have trial by…

THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS : LOOKING AT GUIDANCE FROM THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS : LOOKING AT GUIDANCE FROM THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

July 20, 2020 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Useful links

I have written before the useful guidance given by the Crown Prosecution Guidance on Expert Evidence.  Many of the points in that guide apply, with equal force, to instructing experts in civil proceedings. It is worthwhile reading for lawyers and experts…

CLAIMANT NOT ALLOWED TO AMEND CLAIM, OR INTRODUCE NEW EXPERT,  WHERE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN BECAUSE OF COVID ALLOWED

CLAIMANT NOT ALLOWED TO AMEND CLAIM, OR INTRODUCE NEW EXPERT, WHERE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN BECAUSE OF COVID ALLOWED

July 9, 2020 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Members Content

In Ludlow -v- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust & BMI Healthcare Ltd [2020] EWHC 1720 (QB) Mr Justice Jay allowed an application for an adjournment on the grounds that a trial could not take place remotely.  However, he refused the claimant’s…

THE EXPERT THAT DOESN'T GIVE HIS SOURCES (EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA): A PRACTICE DEPRECATED BY THE COURT.

THE EXPERT THAT DOESN’T GIVE HIS SOURCES (EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA): A PRACTICE DEPRECATED BY THE COURT.

June 25, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC) Mrs Justice O’Farrell commented on the practice of one of the experts in the case. Failure to follow the basic guidance given in the…

PROVING THINGS 177: WHEN YOU ARE RELYING ON A MEDICAL EXPERT ON CAUSATION WHO "SHOOTS FROM THE HIP" (IT DOESN'T END WELL)

PROVING THINGS 177: WHEN YOU ARE RELYING ON A MEDICAL EXPERT ON CAUSATION WHO “SHOOTS FROM THE HIP” (IT DOESN’T END WELL)

June 22, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I have written many times about issues arising from expert witnesses.  In clinical negligence cases the role of the expert witness is often paramount.  The claimant, in particular, is almost wholly reliant on expert evidence in relation to causation. It…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PERILS AND THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 29th JUNE 2020

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PERILS AND THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 29th JUNE 2020

June 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Courses, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The problems that experts can cause in cases (often to the side that instructed them) have been extensively catalogued on this blog over the years.  On the 29th June I am giving a webinar on the perils and pitfalls of…

JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU AN EXPERT: "ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS AND NAKED USURPATION[S] OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN"

JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU AN EXPERT: “ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS AND NAKED USURPATION[S] OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN”

June 1, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Last week the “Covid Repeats” posts on this blog highlighted a few (and just a few) of the cases where judges had been critical of the role of experts, or experts involved in cases has been problematic.  That this remains…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED: CPR 3.9 PROPERLY APPLIED IS ARTICLE 6 COMPLIANT

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED: CPR 3.9 PROPERLY APPLIED IS ARTICLE 6 COMPLIANT

May 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The previous two posts on this blog have been warning against complacency in relation to the Denton principles.  This is the third in that series.  In Magee v Willmott [2020] EWHC 1378 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip allowed an appeal in…

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION GOES UP IN SMOKE...

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION GOES UP IN SMOKE…

May 29, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Possibly the most difficult position you could put yourself in in litigation is for the court to make an order, do something the court did not allow, not get permission in advance, and then seek relief from sanctions thereafter.   …

COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS

COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS

May 29, 2020 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The impartiality, or otherwise, of expert witness witnesses was in the news in June 2014.  Since expert evidence has been a constant theme on this blog.  This would seem an appropriate time to revisit a post about the cross-examination of…

COVID REPEATS 33: YOU'LL NEVER GET TYRED OF THIS: AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”:

COVID REPEATS 33: YOU’LL NEVER GET TYRED OF THIS: AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”:

May 26, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is “experts” week for our stroll back through various posts on this blog.  In September 2017  barrister Brian McCluggage for sent me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which…

THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT'S EXAMINATION - THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT

THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION – THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT

May 21, 2020 · by gexall · in Arbitration,, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In October last year I wrote about the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB).  The claimant recorded her consultation with the defendant’s medical expert and was given permission to produce these in evidence.  That case has…

EXPERTS CAN'T BE ADVOCATES: IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT

EXPERTS CAN’T BE ADVOCATES: IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT

May 21, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are some interesting observations about the role of the expert made by Judge Asif Malek in Neil Picklessharon Pickles v Revenue & Customs (Whether crediting a directors’ loan account which was freely available for the directors/members to draw upon…

THE EXPERT'S DUTY TO GIVE A RANGE OF OPINION: A DECISION NOT TO DO SO "BORDERING ON ARROGANCE"

THE EXPERT’S DUTY TO GIVE A RANGE OF OPINION: A DECISION NOT TO DO SO “BORDERING ON ARROGANCE”

May 11, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

Experts have a mandatory duty under the rules to give a range of opinion for their advices.  I am grateful to Gary Smith from Prince Evans & Co for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Belcher in…

EXPERT'S CONDUCT DID NOT LEAD TO EVIDENCE BEING DISALLOWED: CLAIMANT'S CASE REMAINS ON TRACK

EXPERT’S CONDUCT DID NOT LEAD TO EVIDENCE BEING DISALLOWED: CLAIMANT’S CASE REMAINS ON TRACK

February 26, 2020 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 387 (TCC)   HHJ Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) carried out a detailed consideration of the conduct of an expert when considering,…

EXPERT WITNESSES: HANDING THE JUDGE AN UNSORTED MEDLEY OF DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO DOWN TOO WELL

EXPERT WITNESSES: HANDING THE JUDGE AN UNSORTED MEDLEY OF DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO DOWN TOO WELL

February 24, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

 There was one aspect of the evidence mentioned in the judgment Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 379 (QB) Mrs Justice Farbey that was somewhat unusual.  An expert handed the judge a “file of documents” to…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 77: THE COURT MUST KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4(2)

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 77: THE COURT MUST KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4(2)

January 15, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

CPR 35.4(2) is often overlooked. This rule imposes a duty on a party applying for permission to rely on expert evidence to inform the court how much the expert is likely to cost.  This is often clear at the costs…

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE YEAR IN REVIEW (6): WHY WE STILL FRET OVER EXPERTS ...

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE YEAR IN REVIEW (6): WHY WE STILL FRET OVER EXPERTS …

December 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

It is no surprise that there are numerous posts on experts this year.  26 years after the blast from the courts on the role of experts  in the Ikerian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyds Reports 68 there are still  regular reports…

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP - NOVEMBER 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – NOVEMBER 2019

November 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we have links to blogs and articles about civil procedure and costs from November 2019. COSTS Costs Barrister Blaming others Costs Barrister The undiscovered country Herbert Smith Freehills Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction to award claimant interim payment on account of costs…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 72:  THE EXPERT'S DUTY TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR VIEWS (A MANDATORY OBLIGATION MORE HONOURED IN THE BREACH...)

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 72: THE EXPERT’S DUTY TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR VIEWS (A MANDATORY OBLIGATION MORE HONOURED IN THE BREACH…)

November 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The recent post on the decision in Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) highlights a common omission from many expert reports. The expert’s duty to consider whether there is a range of opinion and to give…

EXPERTS, IMPARTIALITY AND CELEBRITY BEDSPREADS: BE CAREFUL OF THE WAY YOU INSTRUCT EXPERTS AND YOU MAY SLEEP TIGHTLY (YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY)

EXPERTS, IMPARTIALITY AND CELEBRITY BEDSPREADS: BE CAREFUL OF THE WAY YOU INSTRUCT EXPERTS AND YOU MAY SLEEP TIGHTLY (YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY)

November 26, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC)   HHJ Melissa Clarke considered, and was critical of, the way in which an expert was instructed.  The difficulty was that the appointed expert moved from “hired gun” hired…

NO SECOND BITE OF A CHERRY AFTER A TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS JUDGE'S DECISION

NO SECOND BITE OF A CHERRY AFTER A TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS JUDGE’S DECISION

November 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content

In  L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor v Liqwd Inc & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1943  the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s decision not to admit new evidence that a defendant attempted to introduce after judgment was handed down….

PROVING THINGS 169: WHEN THE DEFENDANT CALLS NO (LAY) EVIDENCE AND TRIES TO PROVE ITS CASE THROUGH THE CLAIMANT'S WITNESSES

PROVING THINGS 169: WHEN THE DEFENDANT CALLS NO (LAY) EVIDENCE AND TRIES TO PROVE ITS CASE THROUGH THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESSES

November 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Witness statements

There are a number of interesting aspects of the judgment of HHJ Coe in Esegbona v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (false imprisonment in hospital) [2019] EWHC 77 (QB). One of which is the defendant’s failure to call any…

DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL REFUSED: A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN MAKING: THE TRIAL WILL GO AHEAD

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL REFUSED: A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN MAKING: THE TRIAL WILL GO AHEAD

November 20, 2019 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Useful links

There is an interesting summary of   the decision in Mitchell -v- Precis 545 Ltd (15/11/2019)  on Kings Chambers website. A report by my colleague Jeremy Roussak of a case where he represented the claimant and where HHJ Freedman refused a…

SOLICITORS GIVING EVIDENCE: IT JUST DOESN'T HELP: IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GIVE ORALLY?

SOLICITORS GIVING EVIDENCE: IT JUST DOESN’T HELP: IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GIVE ORALLY?

November 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The danger of witness statements from solicitors purporting to give evidence as to fact has been emphasised many times in the cases reported on the blog.   The danger can be seen again in the judgment of Ms Pat Treacy (sitting…

APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THE IMPORTANCE OF PROMPT APPLICATIONS

APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THE IMPORTANCE OF PROMPT APPLICATIONS

November 1, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd & Anor v Muhammad Ali Junaid Food Trends Ltd (Now Dissolved) & Ors[2019] EWHC 2769 (QB) Matthew Gullick (sitting as a High Court judge) granted the claimants relief from sanctions in relation to late service…

PROVING THINGS 167: BUNDLES, EXPERTS, ABSENT WITNESS, UNPLEADED DEFENCES AND... SEWAGE: ALL MODERN LITIGATION IS HERE...

PROVING THINGS 167: BUNDLES, EXPERTS, ABSENT WITNESS, UNPLEADED DEFENCES AND… SEWAGE: ALL MODERN LITIGATION IS HERE…

October 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

 The judgment of HHJ Russen (QC) (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Kivells Ltd v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 2846 (TCC), contains a number of interesting scenarios in relation  to civil evidence.  Many  of the common problems of…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD...

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD…

October 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

One, unusual, aspect of the decision in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) is that the experts had sought directions from the court. This brings attention to the (apparently) little used provisions of CPR 35.14.  Experts have the…

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT'S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT'S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT’S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT’S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE

October 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

An earlier post dealt with the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) and the claimant’s decision to record her appointments with the defendant’s medical experts.  The issue of what, precisely, was said to an expert can…

CLAIMANT'S QUESTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS DISALLOWED: PART 35 HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR PROPORTIONALITY: EXPERTS SEEK HELP

CLAIMANT’S QUESTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS DISALLOWED: PART 35 HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR PROPORTIONALITY: EXPERTS SEEK HELP

October 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is another aspect of the judgment of Master Davison in In  Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) that is of considerable interest.  The Master disallowed a series of lengthy questions to the experts.   The Master pointed out…

COURT ADMITS CLAIMANT'S TAPES OF CONSULTATIONS WITH DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS: PROBATIVE VALUE  OUTWEIGHS REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT

COURT ADMITS CLAIMANT’S TAPES OF CONSULTATIONS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT

October 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) Master Davison allowed the claimant to produce as evidence the tapes they had recorded of their consultations with the defendant’s medical experts.   This decision raises some interesting issues. (The case…

THE HONEST WITNESS WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED - BUT WHO STILL WON HER CASE: A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF  THE LAY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE IN MORDEL

THE HONEST WITNESS WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED – BUT WHO STILL WON HER CASE: A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE LAY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE IN MORDEL

October 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

The result of the judgment today  in Mordel v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2591 (QB) has already been well publicised.  A mother succeeded in her claim that the defendant trust was negligent in failing to check her…

WHEN WITNESSES ATTEMPT TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: LOOK OUT FOR THOSE PURPLE PASSAGES

WHEN WITNESSES ATTEMPT TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: LOOK OUT FOR THOSE PURPLE PASSAGES

October 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has reported on numerous cases where lay witnesses have attempted to give expert evidence (and, indeed, where expert witnesses have tried to give evidence of matters of fact).  This issue can be seen in the judgment of Lord…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 66: THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 66: THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4

October 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

A party seeking to rely on expert evidence requires permission from the court. It is surprising how often the rule requiring the court to be provided with details of the cost of that expert is overlooked. “When parties apply for…

PAYING EXPERT'S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND - GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS ...

PAYING EXPERT’S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND – GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS …

September 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment in the case of   Clegg v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2019] EWHC 2408. A solicitor was struck off, in circumstances  that could easily have been avoided.   It required the simple step of informing an expert that a trial had…

HOW DO YOU VALUE A FOOTBALL CLUB: EXPERTS DISCUSS THE ODDS: BLADES AWAY

HOW DO YOU VALUE A FOOTBALL CLUB: EXPERTS DISCUSS THE ODDS: BLADES AWAY

September 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is an interesting passage in the judgment in UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2322 (Ch) in relation to experts. It is an interesting example of expert evidence of valuation in a, relatively unusual, case…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DANGERS OF INADVERTENTLY MISLEADING THE COURT: CHECK BEFORE YOU ASSERT (ALSO A MESSAGE HERE FOR EXPERTS)

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DANGERS OF INADVERTENTLY MISLEADING THE COURT: CHECK BEFORE YOU ASSERT (ALSO A MESSAGE HERE FOR EXPERTS)

September 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The judgment of Master Clark in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) contains a number of important lessons : (i) for anyone preparing a witness statement to be careful not to inadvertently mislead the court; (ii) for experts – on…

← Previous 1 … 4 5 6 … 8 Next →

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

  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 79: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANT’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WERE “REASONABLY ARGUABLE” ISSUES IN RELATION TO LIMITATION
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
  • COST BITES : BOTH PARTIES MADE “PART 36 OFFERS”: BOTH WERE INEFFECTIVE (AND THE MASTER WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES EVEN IF THEY WERE VALID…)

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • 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)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.