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 6
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…

PROVING THINGS 161: DOCUMENTS BEING DELIBERATELY DESTROYED AND EXPERTS WHO WERE OF VERY LIMITED ASSISTANCE

PROVING THINGS 161: DOCUMENTS BEING DELIBERATELY DESTROYED AND EXPERTS WHO WERE OF VERY LIMITED ASSISTANCE

September 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment in  Bajaj Healthcare Ltd v Fine Organics Ltd [2019] EWHC 2316 (Ch) is in what could appear to be a fairly dry dispute about the supply of goods. As the judge observed this was not a simple sale…

THE EXPERT AS ADVOCATE AND PROVIDING "CRITICAL COMMENTARY": IMPORTANT POINTS ON THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS TO TAKE AWAY

THE EXPERT AS ADVOCATE AND PROVIDING “CRITICAL COMMENTARY”: IMPORTANT POINTS ON THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS TO TAKE AWAY

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are some interesting comments on experts in the judgment of Matthew Gullick (sitting as a High Court Judge) in  Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd & Anor v Junaid & Ors [2019] EWHC 2097. “It is not part of the duty…

AN "EMBARRASSING" EXPERT WHO USED AN EXPLETIVE WHILST GIVING EVIDENCE: GUESS WHERE THIS CASE IS GOING?

AN “EMBARRASSING” EXPERT WHO USED AN EXPLETIVE WHILST GIVING EVIDENCE: GUESS WHERE THIS CASE IS GOING?

August 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Arksey v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1276 (QB) is interesting on the subject of causation and medical negligence.  However the claimant’s problems came largely  from reliance on an…

THE DANGERS OF AN "ENTHUSIASTIC" EXPERT - CASTS DOUBTS ON THEIR RELIABILITY

THE DANGERS OF AN “ENTHUSIASTIC” EXPERT – CASTS DOUBTS ON THEIR RELIABILITY

August 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Most clients are happy to find an expert witness who agrees with their case. Even better, it may be thought, is an eminent expert who feels very strongly about the case.  However, as we have seen so often on this…

WHEN THE EXPERT WITNESS ACTUALLY SAYS THEY ARE AN "ADVOCATE": WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

WHEN THE EXPERT WITNESS ACTUALLY SAYS THEY ARE AN “ADVOCATE”: WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

July 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In LIC Telecommunications SARL & Anor v VTB Capital Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 1747 (Comm)  Mrs Justice Moulder made some telling observations in relation to the expert evidence. THE CASE The application concerned whether certain proceedings were duly authorised….

DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON "SPECIALIST" EVIDENCE AS TO LIFE EXPECTANCY: THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED AND CONSIDERED

DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON “SPECIALIST” EVIDENCE AS TO LIFE EXPECTANCY: THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED AND CONSIDERED

June 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Dodds v Arif & Anor [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB) Master Davison refused the defendant’s application to rely on a specialist report in relation to the claimant’s life expectancy. The judgment also contains an important summary of the circumstances in…

PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE

PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE

June 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Professional negligence,

In AXO v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1454 (QB)  Mrs Justice YIP considered the issue of causation in a clinical negligence case.  Liability was admitted but the claimant failed to establish causation. THE CASE The claimant child was…

EXPERT WITNESSES: A CRISIS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS - RECOMMENDED READING FOR ALL LITIGATORS

EXPERT WITNESSES: A CRISIS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS – RECOMMENDED READING FOR ALL LITIGATORS

June 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Useful links

Matthew Scott’s “Barrister Blogger” blog is always an interesting read.  His latest post Expert witnesses: a crisis in the criminal courts  is essential reading for everyone involved in any type of litigation – and also for anyone who is an…

THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE "HIRED GUN": THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE

THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE

June 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT  EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD

June 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This blog looked recently at the case of O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 where the trial judge was critical of a jointly instructed expert’s attempt to find facts and state that something was “proven by overwhelming evidence”.  That case contains…

THE APPOINTMENT OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT DOES NOT DISPLACE THE TRIAL JUDGE: EXPERTS SHOULD NOT "OVERREACH"

THE APPOINTMENT OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT DOES NOT DISPLACE THE TRIAL JUDGE: EXPERTS SHOULD NOT “OVERREACH”

June 1, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 Mr Recorder Allen QC noted that a Single Joint Expert had gone beyond their remit in making findings of “fact”.   The parties do not “abdicate” findings to a single joint experts and the…

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (3): THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (3): THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE

May 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are returning to the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims”. This time the guidance on the instruction of experts. Remember this guidance is incorporated into the rules.  It provides a essential information as…

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (2): THE APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE

May 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The importance of the guidance given by the Civil Justice Council  “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims” is often overlooked.  Not only are few people aware of exist of the guidance, fewer still are aware that it…

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (1): GUIDANCE FROM THE LAWYERIST: "MUCH LIKE A COWBOY HERDING CATTLE"

GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (1): GUIDANCE FROM THE LAWYERIST: “MUCH LIKE A COWBOY HERDING CATTLE”

May 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Instructing expert witnesses is an important step in many actions.  The advantages, and problems, caused by experts are well known and widely reported recently.  This is one of the matters that crosses boundaries and gives rise to common problems across…

WHO IS AN EXPERT? NOW THERE'S A QUESTION: DEFINITIONS OF "EXPERT" CONSIDERED

WHO IS AN EXPERT? NOW THERE’S A QUESTION: DEFINITIONS OF “EXPERT” CONSIDERED

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

The collapse of the “carbon credit fraud” prosecution today because an “expert” was found out to have no actual expertise leads to consideration of how  exactly the courts define an “expert” .  This does not give rise to a straightforward…

EXPERT EVIDENCE, LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: WEBINAR 2nd JULY 2019

EXPERT EVIDENCE, LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: WEBINAR 2nd JULY 2019

May 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Courses, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are more than 500 posts on this blog that deal with, or mention, expert evidence. It is a central feature of much litigation. I am giving a webinar on the relevant law, practice and procedure of experts on the…

TRYING TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT'S REPORT: WHEN DO THE DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY?

TRYING TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT’S REPORT: WHEN DO THE DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY?

May 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Global Horizons Corporation -v- Gray [2019] EWHC 1132 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold considered the question of when the Denton principles apply to service of a “supplementary” medical report.   “… the question of whether an application for permission to…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

May 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Price -v-  Cwm Taf University Health Board  [2019] EWHC 938 (QB).   A transcript of the case is available on the…

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE "BIASED"...

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE “BIASED”…

May 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

In Hanbury & Anor v Hugh James Solicitors (a firm) [2019] EWHC 1074 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that a firm of solicitors had been negligent in its conduct of a fatal accident case.  There are a number of lessons…

AN "UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW" BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS

AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS

April 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Risks of litigation

There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts.  There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in  Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch)  which provide another example. THE…

THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT  WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)

THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)

April 22, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Expert evidence, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in  Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…

WHEN AN EXPERT RELIES ON MATTERS FROM THE INTERNET FOR MATTERS OUTSIDE THEIR EXPERTISE THEN YOUR CASE IS LIKELY TO FALL APART:  THE CIDER HOUSE RULES

WHEN AN EXPERT RELIES ON MATTERS FROM THE INTERNET FOR MATTERS OUTSIDE THEIR EXPERTISE THEN YOUR CASE IS LIKELY TO FALL APART: THE CIDER HOUSE RULES

March 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am returning to the decision of  HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Barnett & Anor [2019] EWHC 700 (Ch). Here was are looking at the judge’s view of one of the experts….

GIVING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: JUST BECAUSE THE COURT HAS SAID YOU MAY - IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WILL: HOW TO FAIL OF YOUR OWN ACCORD

GIVING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: JUST BECAUSE THE COURT HAS SAID YOU MAY – IT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WILL: HOW TO FAIL OF YOUR OWN ACCORD

March 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

Trials are always stressful events for the participants. They require careful preparation and are usually subject to close case management. Imagine the difficulties when you turn up at the trial and the judge says that the evidence you are relying…

YOU SPEND A FORTUNE ON EXPERT WITNESSES AND THEN FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE OR THEIR EVIDENCE ISN'T "EXPERT" AT ALL

YOU SPEND A FORTUNE ON EXPERT WITNESSES AND THEN FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE OR THEIR EVIDENCE ISN’T “EXPERT” AT ALL

March 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are parts of the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Barnett & Anor [2019] EWHC 700 (Ch) that merit close consideration by anyone involved in litigation that (they…

SHOULD AN ERRANT EXPERT GO TO JAIL? COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT SHOULD LEAD TO JAIL

SHOULD AN ERRANT EXPERT GO TO JAIL? COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT SHOULD LEAD TO JAIL

March 20, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Committal proceedings, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392 the Court of Appeal set out clear guidance for courts considering sentencing in  cases relating to reckless contempt on the part of expert witnesses.  A “reckless” statement made…

GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT'S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT'S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES

GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT’S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT’S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Hamad M. Aldrees & Partners v Rotex Europe Ltd [2019] EWHC 574 (TCC)  Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart expressed concern about an attack on the credibility of an expert witness.  In that case there was no evidence to support an assertion that…

EXPERTS WHO CAN'T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN'T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL...

EXPERTS WHO CAN’T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN’T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL…

March 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In X and Y (Delay : Professional Conduct of Expert) [2019] EWFC B9 HH Clifford Bellamy (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) made some observations in relation to the role of the expert, particularly when that expert cannot report timeously.  The…

PROVING THINGS 145: WHEN EXPERTS ARE OF NO HELP AT ALL: IT IS THE FACTS THAT WON IT

PROVING THINGS 145: WHEN EXPERTS ARE OF NO HELP AT ALL: IT IS THE FACTS THAT WON IT

March 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

I am giving a seminar on “Expert Witnesses and Liability” at the APIL Annual Conference in May.  The judgment of HHJ McKenna (sitting as a High Court judge) in  Al-Iqra & Ors v DSG Retail Ltd [2019] EWHC 429 (QB) gives…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 33: INVALUABLE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM THE ICCA

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 33: INVALUABLE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM THE ICCA

March 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Useful links

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy has prepared a very useful guide called “Guidance on the preparation, admission and examination of expert evidence”.  It is free of charge and can be downloaded .   This post is just a summary…

WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)

WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)

February 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There was report in the Scottish newspaper The Herald earlier this week about disciplinary proceedings being brought against a doctor who had prepared a “misleading and inaccurate” medical report. In essence the expert reported, as facts, matters that the interviewee…

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder refused the defendant’s application to declare inadmissible part of an expert report and a joint expert report.  It was held that the principles in Rogers -v- Hoyle are of general…

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) is available through a Linked In post provided by barrister Andrew Mckie. It provides a number of lessons for those collecting evidence. In a case where…

PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE

PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

In Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court restored the decision of the trial judge in relation to damages. One of the key issues was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the trial judge’s factual…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29:  EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE'S TERRITORY DON'T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29: EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE’S TERRITORY DON’T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL

February 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have seen several cases recently where judges have objected, in clear terms, to an expert trying to find “facts”. That is properly a matter for the trial judge.   It is worthwhile looking at the guidance and cases on this…

← Previous 1 … 5 6 7 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?
  • COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.