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
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…

LITIGATORS KEEP A CAREFUL LOOK OUT: ITS YOUR DUTY TO MONITOR YOUR EXPERT'S CONDUCT (OTHERWISE ITS YOUR CLIENT THAT SUFFERS)

LITIGATORS KEEP A CAREFUL LOOK OUT: ITS YOUR DUTY TO MONITOR YOUR EXPERT’S CONDUCT (OTHERWISE ITS YOUR CLIENT THAT SUFFERS)

January 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

One specific aspect of the judgment in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) that needs emphasising is the duty the case places on a litigant’s lawyers to monitor the conduct of an expert and…

INTRANSIGENT EXPERT'S APPROACH LEADS TO "SIGNIFICANT PART OF CLAIMANT'S CASE BEING STRUCK OUT": A CASE FOR EVERY EXPERT AND LITIGATOR TO READ - NOW

INTRANSIGENT EXPERT’S APPROACH LEADS TO “SIGNIFICANT PART OF CLAIMANT’S CASE BEING STRUCK OUT”: A CASE FOR EVERY EXPERT AND LITIGATOR TO READ – NOW

January 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) is one of the most robust I have seen in relation to expert evidence. An expert’s failure to properly engage…

EXPERTS IN THE FAMILY COURT: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED

EXPERTS IN THE FAMILY COURT: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED

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

I usually look at cases in the family courts when there are judgments that may be of some interest to civil litigators.  The judgment  of Mr Justice Keehan in M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors [2018] EWHC 3734 (Fam) …

BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE:  EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU

BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE: EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU

January 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Brexit, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is a far less exciting case than the headline suggests, however it is the first  case I have seen about the impact of Brexit on civil procedure (albeit indirectly). In Canary Wharf (Bp4) T1 Ltd & Ors v European Medicines…

EXPERT WITNESS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE "BOMBASTIC BULLSHITTER"? A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE EXPERT IMPARTIALITY

EXPERT WITNESS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE “BOMBASTIC BULLSHITTER”? A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE EXPERT IMPARTIALITY

January 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Professor Penny Cooper for sending me a copy of the report she authored with Dr Michelle Mattison for the Expert Witness Institute – “Towards Expert Witness Independence and Impartiality”.  This post is just a snapshot, to…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF JUMPING THE GUN: JUDGES DO NOT PASSIVELY ACQUIRE AN ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF BUNDLES BY OSMOSIS

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF JUMPING THE GUN: JUDGES DO NOT PASSIVELY ACQUIRE AN ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF BUNDLES BY OSMOSIS

November 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Written advocacy

There is so much for litigators to learn from the judgment of Master Thornett in Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB) that I considered a series of blog posts.  There are a number of central…

GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS, STRAIGHT FROM THE BENCH: ONLY PUT YOUR HAT WHERE YOU CAN REACH IT: AVOID EXPERT-WITNESS-ITIS

GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS, STRAIGHT FROM THE BENCH: ONLY PUT YOUR HAT WHERE YOU CAN REACH IT: AVOID EXPERT-WITNESS-ITIS

November 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are several series on this blog which features judges giving advice to advocates. In his keynote address to the Bond Solon Experts conference Lord Justice McFarlane gives advice to experts.  As ever the aim of this post is to…

EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY: WHY RECENTLY CROSS-EXAMINED EXPERTS SHOULD NOT E-MAIL THE OTHER SIDE'S COUNSEL...

EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY: WHY RECENTLY CROSS-EXAMINED EXPERTS SHOULD NOT E-MAIL THE OTHER SIDE’S COUNSEL…

November 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In D (A child : parental alienation) [2018] EWFC B64 HHJ Clifford Bellamy had to deal with the unusual situation in which an expert witness e-mailed counsel who had cross-examined him. “I was surprised, therefore, to receive an email from Mr…

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT - AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT – AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

October 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Lord Justice Coulson used the judgment in Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2403 to remind (some) litigators of  some key principles in relation to appeals on findings of fact.   He emphasised that the Technology…

TRYING TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO A WITNESS STATEMENT: PEOPLE MIGHT NOTICE: DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT EXPERTS STRUCK OUT

TRYING TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO A WITNESS STATEMENT: PEOPLE MIGHT NOTICE: DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT EXPERTS STRUCK OUT

October 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There have been numerous cases in which parties have attempted to give expert evidence in witness statements.  Another example can be seen in the decision in New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky [2018] EWHC 2742 (Ch). An attempt to…

NEW WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED TO CASE MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IS THE ONLY SAFE OPTION

NEW WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED TO CASE MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IS THE ONLY SAFE OPTION

October 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In SJ Moore (Jeweller) Limited -v- Squibb Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2731 (QB) Denton principles were considered and applied when the defendant wanted to adduce new evidence.  What is notable  here is the fact that the defendant had the expert…

"RECKLESS EXPERTS": SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND

“RECKLESS EXPERTS”: SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND

October 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

The judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) was looked at earlier.  It made the point that “reckless” reporting by experts can lead to experts being in contempt of court.  This led me to…

SOLICITORS AND EXPERT WITNESSES CAN GO TO JAIL: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE VASTLY CHANGED MEDICAL REPORT

SOLICITORS AND EXPERT WITNESSES CAN GO TO JAIL: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE VASTLY CHANGED MEDICAL REPORT

October 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Committal proceedings, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham found a solicitor and a doctor in contempt of court.   The solicitor was imprisoned for 12 months, the doctor given a six month sentence,…

EXPERT EVIDENCE - SHOULD YOU FRET ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERT HAS QUOTED?  I DON'T LIKE MONDAYS BUT YOU CAN KEEP THE GUITAR PARTS

EXPERT EVIDENCE – SHOULD YOU FRET ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERT HAS QUOTED? I DON’T LIKE MONDAYS BUT YOU CAN KEEP THE GUITAR PARTS

October 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Moylett v Geldof & Anor [2018] EWHC 893 (Ch) Mr Justice Carr considered some aspects relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. Statements of others included in a report are not expert evidence, however the inclusion of those statements did…

AN EXPERT'S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

AN EXPERT’S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Charles Holland for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Meek in Endless Stretch -v- Newcastle County Council. A copy can be found in the link on this page.    This case is…

PROVING THINGS 122: THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT BE DISHONEST BUT SHE IS NOT ACCURATE:  A HIGH IQ IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMMONSENSE

PROVING THINGS 122: THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT BE DISHONEST BUT SHE IS NOT ACCURATE: A HIGH IQ IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMMONSENSE

August 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

Many cases rest on the credibility of witnesses.  A detailed examination can be found in the judgment of HH Judge Saggerson (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Hibberd-Little v Carlton [2018] EWHC 1787 (QB). There are issues here in relation…

EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE

EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE

July 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is the second case today looking at observations made in cases this week in relation to the joint meeting of experts. In BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC) HH Honour Judge Stephen Davies stated…

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Proportionality

In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1514 the Court of Appeal considered a “rather obscure” argument that an error by the appellant’s expert should lead to damages being reconsidered.   “It would be quite wrong…

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT?  RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A "MEDICAL REPORT" WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A “MEDICAL REPORT” WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In a judgment given today at Leeds County Court His Honour Judge Gosnell held that a claimant, seeking damages for industrial deafness, breached the rules when issuing by not serving a medical report but serving an “AMR” report.  The judge,…

PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT  AND WHO ARE "NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION"

PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT AND WHO ARE “NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION”

June 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

 Family cases, however, often come up with interesting observations in relation to the judge’s role as a fact finder. Similarly much can be gained by looking at  the judge’s observations on experts. We see a critique of the process of…

PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

June 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Summary judgment

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL SEE THE REPORT HERE  In Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 1345 (QB) Master Cook allowed a defendant’s application for summary judgment. It is a classic case of a…

PROVING THINGS 108: PROVING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE

PROVING THINGS 108: PROVING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE

June 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Avondale Exhibitions Ltd v Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1311 (QB) His Honour Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the issue of whether it was necessary to adduce expert evidence to…

PROVING THINGS 95: OH... WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES...

PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…

May 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018.  The post provides a link to the judgment itself.  The judgment is another example of a…

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY "WISHFUL THINKING": £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…

HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE

HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE

January 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

I have lost track of the number of interlocutory judgments there have been in the case of  Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest judgment being at [2017] EWHC 3054 (QB). This  judgment deals with the issue…

"SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH": FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

January 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…

WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP ...

WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …

December 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

In  British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …

← 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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER WHILST AN APPLICATION TO REALLOCATE THE CASE FROM BAND 2 TO BAND 1 IS PENDING: CAN THE COURT STILL PROCEED TO REALLOCATE?
  • PROVING THINGS 286: THE CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE ITS CASE: YOU LOST US $715 MILLION IN TWO YEARS BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS YOU WERE BUYING
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 66: WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIES TO ADVANCE ALLEGATIONS NOT STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF CASE THOSE MATTERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE
  • PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT: NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FROM 14th APRIL 2026 (UPDATED)
  • “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

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
  • A REMINDER - DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
  • PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT: NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FROM 14th APRIL 2026 (UPDATED)
  • "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
  • AN "EXTERNAL" REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..

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.