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 7
EVIDENCE IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: MISSING WITNESSES AND ERRANT EXPERTS: LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EARLIER: ATTEMPT TO BACKTRACK FROM JOINT REPORT NOT SUCCESSFUL

EVIDENCE IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: MISSING WITNESSES AND ERRANT EXPERTS: LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EARLIER: ATTEMPT TO BACKTRACK FROM JOINT REPORT NOT SUCCESSFUL

October 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Experts, Members Content

The case of Palmer v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2460 (QB) is one where the defendant was, ultimately, successful on the issue of causation. However the judge had some interesting observations as to the expert evidence called by both…

SOME WARNINGS AS TO EVIDENCE: A SYMPHONY REVIVED:  HOW THE JUDGE CONDUCTS AN ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY

SOME WARNINGS AS TO EVIDENCE: A SYMPHONY REVIVED: HOW THE JUDGE CONDUCTS AN ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY

September 29, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

The post yesterday on witness credibility in the case of Frenkel v Lyampert & Ors [2017] EWHC 2223 (Ch) referred to a passage in the earlier case of EPI Environmental Technologies Inc v Symphony Plastic Technologies plc (Practice Note) [2005] 1 WLR 3456.    This…

EXPERT REPORTS: "CONTENTIONS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PURSUED AT ALL"

EXPERT REPORTS: “CONTENTIONS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PURSUED AT ALL”

September 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company “Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) Sir Michael Burton (sitting as a High Court Judge) commented on the expert evidence in relation to Russian law.   The fact that an expert made concessions…

WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO "GO BACK TO SCHOOL":  CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO “GO BACK TO SCHOOL”: CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

September 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The case of Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017)*   highlights some of the issues that arise in the meeting of experts.  The meeting is an important stage in many types of action, however the case law and rules relating to it…

AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS "EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE": THIS DOESN'T END WELL

AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”: THIS DOESN’T END WELL

September 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Problems caused by expert witnesses feature heavily on this blog. I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which contains robust…

EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN "NO WEIGHT AT ALL": FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN “NO WEIGHT AT ALL”: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

August 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are some interesting passages in the judgment of David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Technomed Ltd & Anor v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch). Here we look at the judgment…

PROVING THINGS 65: : ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE: (IF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE TO ASK FOR THE MATTER TO BE MADE SIMPLE YOU ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE)

PROVING THINGS 65: : ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE: (IF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE TO ASK FOR THE MATTER TO BE MADE SIMPLE YOU ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE)

August 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Members Content

The case of Ted Baker Plc & Anor v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 4097 could serve as a parable of modern litigation. The claimant won the first trial on this matter, establishing the defendant insurers were…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHEN PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS "ABSURD" - THIS IS NO SMALL BEER

EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHEN PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS “ABSURD” – THIS IS NO SMALL BEER

August 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

I am grateful to barrister Simon Mills for sending me a copy of the judgment of Judge Waksman QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in  BHL -v- Leumi ABL Limited [2017] EWHC 1871 (QB).  Here I look at…

EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT

EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT

July 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

In Condor Vilca & ors -v- Xstrata Limited [2017] EWHC 582 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart-Smith rejected an application that a party disclose its previous expert evidence when it needed to change its choice of expert. The reason for the change…

WHEN IS AN EXPERT NEEDED? NOT HERE

WHEN IS AN EXPERT NEEDED? NOT HERE

May 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

CPR 35. imposes a duty on the court to restrict expert evidence “Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings”.  This has led to some interesting case law. The most recent discussion is…

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, INTERRUPTIONS AND HOT TUBBING: JUDICIAL LATITUDE IS NOT UNLIMITED

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, INTERRUPTIONS AND HOT TUBBING: JUDICIAL LATITUDE IS NOT UNLIMITED

April 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

In Shaw -v- Grouby [2017] EWCA Civ 233 the Court of Appeal made some observations about the dangers of a judge getting too inquisitorial in the course of a trial, particularly in the course of cross-examination. “The judge intervened in…

THE TRIAL JUDGE AND FINDINGS OF FACT:  COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT OVERTURN FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE

THE TRIAL JUDGE AND FINDINGS OF FACT: COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT OVERTURN FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE

April 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

A disappointed insurer failed in its attempt to overturn findings of a trial judge in Hamid -v- Khalid [2017] EWCA Civ 201. “The task of a trial judge is difficult enough without having to deal expressly with every single piece…

PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT "USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT"

PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT “USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT”

March 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case

There is an interesting discussion of the purpose of pleadings and expert evidence in the judgment of  HH Parkes QC in PP -v- The Home Office [2017] EWHC 663 (QB). The fact that an expert report is referred to in…

EXPERT EVIDENCE  AND EXPERT CREDIBILITY: DISCLOSING KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTIES IS IMPORTANT

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND EXPERT CREDIBILITY: DISCLOSING KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTIES IS IMPORTANT

March 16, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Experts, Members Content

In Thefaut -v- Johnson [2017] EWHC 497(QB) Mr Justice Green made some important observations about the need for experts to be candid about their prior knowledge of, and relationships with, the parties to the action.  A failure to mention knowledge…

PROVING THINGS 57: LEASE SAID SOONEST MENDED: CLAIM FOR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES FAILS (AND GUESS THE REASON)

PROVING THINGS 57: LEASE SAID SOONEST MENDED: CLAIM FOR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES FAILS (AND GUESS THE REASON)

March 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

This series  often looks  at cases that have floundered at trial –  usually because of the absence of basic evidence to prove a litigant’s case. This can be seen again in the judgment of Mr Stephen Furst QC in Car…

EXPERT WITNESSES: RARELY TOTALLY IMPARTIAL BUT SOME ARE LESS PARTIAL THAN OTHERS

EXPERT WITNESSES: RARELY TOTALLY IMPARTIAL BUT SOME ARE LESS PARTIAL THAN OTHERS

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is a short passage in the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon in Edward Lifesciences -v- Boston Scientific 2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) (03 March 2017) that encapsulate the issues surrounding the assessment of expert evidence. “Rarely, if ever, is an…

EXPERTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE: DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON EXPERT ALSO USED BY CLAIMANT

February 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Wheeldon Brothers Waste Limited -v- Millennium  Insurance Company Limited [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson allowed the defendant to rely on an expert that had also been instructed by the claimant. The circumstances are unusual and the case needs…

PROVING THINGS 52: SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION FAILS ON ALL COUNTS: NO NEGLIGENCE AND NO LOSS

February 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of  HHH David Cooke today in Anderson Properties Ltd -v- Blyth Liggins [2017] EWHC 244 (Ch)  is another example of a solicitor’s negligence case failing because of the absence of basic evidence in relation to liability, causation and damages….

TRIAL JUDGE’S REJECTION OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: IF AN EXPERT KNOWS A PARTY THEY SHOULD SAY SO

February 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In EXP -v- Barker [2017]  EWCA Civ 63 the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s rejection of the evidence of an expert witness. “the starting point is to identify what the judge decided. He considered that the witness had…

THE JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: AN ESSENTIAL SUMMARY

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In  the judgment today in The Queen on the application of ASK -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 196 (Admin) Mr Justice Green sets out a template for the judicial assessment of evidence.  It provides…

EXPERT WATCH II: ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK THE EVIDENCE IN

January 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content

There are some examples of  ingenious attempts to introduce expert evidence into cases.  Mr Justice Arnold commented on this in his judgment in Teva UK Ltd -v- Gilead Sciences Inc [2017] EWHC 13 (Pat).  A “factual” report from an expert is…

EXPERT WATCH: SOURCE OF INFORMATION CLARIFIED (AND OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE)

January 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) that justify closer examination. In particular the source of information of the expert’s information was illustrative. It highlights the importance of examining…

PROVING THINGS 47:  FIRE IN THE LOFT: IT WASN'T THE MOUSE MAN AT ALL

PROVING THINGS 47: FIRE IN THE LOFT: IT WASN’T THE MOUSE MAN AT ALL

January 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) is another example of a claimant failing to prove their case. More curiously, in some respects, the claimant’s own evidence contradicted their case. “In circumstances where there…

PROVING THINGS 46: LATE THEORIES ADVANCED BY EXPERTS RARELY HELP

December 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

Some aspects of litigation are highly reliant upon experts.  Medical causation is on of those areas.  The issues between experts should be clarified in the joint statement.  In Smith -v- Tesco PLC & Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2016]…

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS IN PATENT CASES: SHOULD BE SHORT AND FAIR

November 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In his judgment today in Merck Sharp and Dhome Limited -v- Shionig & Co Limited [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat) Mr Justice Arnold made some observations about the cross-examination of expert witnesses. These related to experts in patent cases, they are…

IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS...

IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Book Review, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

There have been many occasions on this blog where I have commented on expert evidence. The links below show many cases where experts have caused major problems (usually for the party instructing them). There are numerous reports of cases where…

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK 1

November 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca -v- Xstrate Limited [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett refused an application to rely on an expert witness.  The case was unusual, however the principles are universal. The questions were whether there was an…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN CAN A LAY WITNESS GIVE OPINION EVIDENCE?THE STATUTE, THE CASES & SOME GUIDANCE

September 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

I have written, many times, about the dangers of putting opinion evidence into witness statements.  The attempts of witnesses to be experts, or to tell the judge what the outcome of the case should be, can lead to robust adverse…

REVISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 2: ON THE LAWYERS DRAFTING THE EXPERTS' REPORTS

August 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

The first post in this series on the judgments in Whitehouse -v- Jordan in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords  looked at the point that, at the appeal stage, the courts were only concerned with whether they could…

DELAY AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: BALD ASSERTIONS IN AN EXPERT'S REPORT

August 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment, Uncategorized

The result in Gahir -v- Bansal [2016] EWHC 2041 (QB) (Sir David Eady) is perhaps surprising given the strength of the judge’s observations as to the defendant’s conduct. Despite major unjustified delay an application to set aside a default judgment…

THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 2: EXPERTS, OH EXPERTS.

July 28, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

This is the second in the series of posts on the  judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages. Here we look…

EXPERT SHOPPING: CHANGING EXPERTS AND DISCLOSURE OF REPORTS

May 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

Suspicions are often aroused when an party wants to change expert mid-way through a case.  There is, usually, a requirement that before a court grants permission to instruct a new expert the previous report has to be disclosed. The case…

THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN LAWYERS & EXPERTS: A DIFFICULT ISSUE

May 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In a week where there is a report of an application being made for a doctor to be committed for contempt* it is prudent to consider that difficult issue of the relationship between the lawyers in a case and the…

EXPERT REPORTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: PART 35 APPLIES

April 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Khaled -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 857 (Admin) Mr Justice Garnham considered Part 35 of the CPR and the admissibility of expert reports in proceedings in the Administrative Court. “The…

IS THIS AN EXPERT REPORT I SEE BEFORE ME? I THINK NOT

March 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Al Nehayan -v- Kent [2016] EWHC 623 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies made observations upon “expert” evidence that had been placed before the court.  There were major failures of form as well as of substance.  The judgment contains an…

PERMISSION NOT GRANTED TO CALL EMPLOYMENT EXPERTS: THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

January 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Various Claimants -v- Sir Robert McAlpine [2016] EWHC 45 (QB) Mr Justice Supperstone and Master Leslie considered the rules and case law in relation to the need to call expert witnesses in detail. KEY POINTS The claimants were refused…

THAT DIFFICULT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN EXPERT WITNESS AND AN ADVOCATE

December 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In AAW -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 673 (IAT) Upper Tribunal Judge Southern made some telling observations on the role of an expert. The judgment is of general interest in relation to the role…

WHEN AN EXPERT FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT THEY KNOW THE PARTIES

December 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

A recent high profile criminal case has identified the major problems that can arise when an expert called to give evidence has failed to disclose that they have had previous dealings with the parties.  Here we look at how the…

THE EXPERT WITNESS THAT TELLS THE JUDGE THE "FACTS": A REVIEW OF RECENT CASES

October 5, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

There have been a number of recent cases where judges have considered the effect of expert witnesses commenting on primary facts. The judiciary have traditionally, and rightly, guarded their role as primary fact finder.  However this does not appear to…

GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS: CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL: WHO DOES AN EXPERT "REPRESENT"?

September 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

It is rare that lawyers can look to the British Dental Journal for advice on procedure and evidence.  However there is a beautifully phrased letter in the British Dental Journal “reviewing a review”. THE LETTER The writer was commenting on…

CASE MANAGEMENT, NECESSITY AND EXPERTS: BA -v- SPENCER: IS EXPERT EVIDENCE "REASONABLY REQUIRED"?

August 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Case Management, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In his decision today in British Airways Plc -v- Spencer [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch) Mr Justice Warren made important observations about the need for expert evidence.  The judge overturned a case management decision that expert evidence was not necessary and…

ASSESSING EXPERT EVIDENCE: GUIDANCE FROM VICTORIA

August 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

There are many cases where a judge has to determine differences between experts.  It is helpful for practitioners to know what factors are taken into account when assessing evidence . The Judicial College of Victoria puts all its guidance to…

EXPERT WITNESSES IN INSURANCE CASES 1: INVOLNERT MANAGEMENT

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Involnert Management Inc -v- AIS Insurance Services Limited [2015] EWHC 2225 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggatt considered the evidence of experts in a case between insurer and insured and, more particularly,between the insured and insurance broker. THE CASE The defendants…

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST "EXPERT WITNESSES" ARE NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision of the Divisional Court in Accident Exchange Ltd -v- Nathan John George-Broom & Ors [2015] EWHC 2205 (Admin) is certainly a development in the practice relating to dismissal. THE CASE The claimants applied to commit a number of…

A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES: THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: DUNNAGE -v- RANDALL

July 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Liability, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision today in Dunnage -v- Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673 is one of those seminal cases that every tort law student will have to read.  Here we look at the case and the procedure. In particular…

ANOTHER UNSATISFACTORY EXPERT: WITH A WRONG VIEW OF HIS ROLE

June 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Sinclair -v- Joyner [2015] EWHC Civ 1800 (QB)  Mrs Justice Cox made some important observations about the role of the expert and the conduct of the expert instructed by the defendant in that case. THE CASE The claimant was…

CAUSATION AND EVIDENCE – A BURNING PROBLEM? IMPORTANT ISSUES FROM A BIZARRE SET OF FACTS

June 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Graves -v- Brouwer [2015] EWCA Civ 595 the Court of Appeal carried out an extensive review of the principles and authorities relating to evidence and causation.  There is a useful discussion on the role and questioning of experts at…

EXPERT REPORTS: TOO LONG AND NOT MUCH USE: CARE EXPERTS MUST TAKE MORE CARE

June 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In the case of Harman -v- East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 1662 (QB) Mr Justice Turner had some very clear criticisms of the expert reports. Some of the comments are of general importance. “Against the background of…

THE MEETING OF EXPERTS: CASE LAW AND GUIDANCE

June 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Members Content

The case of Cintas Corp No 2 -v- Rhino Developments (2015 Ch D Newey J 10/6/2015) * reported on Lawtel today provides an interesting scenario in relation to the conduct of an expert and joint meetings. There is relatively little…

APPEALING DECISIONS IN RELATION TO EXPERTS: SOME USEFUL EXAMPLES

June 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Expert evidence, Members Content

An earlier post commented on how rare it was for appeals to take place in relation to the instruction of experts. John McQuater of Atherton Godfrey has kindly sent me two examples of appeals on the issue of experts. (Both…

← Previous 1 … 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

  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)

Top Posts

  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • NEW RULES CAME INTO FORCE YESTERDAY: A QUICK REMINDER
  • MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING

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.