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
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. …

FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: A JUDGE MAKES THE FINDINGS FIRST AND CONSIDERS THE EXPERT EVIDENCE NEXT

FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: A JUDGE MAKES THE FINDINGS FIRST AND CONSIDERS THE EXPERT EVIDENCE NEXT

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

In Graham & Anor v Campfield & Anor [2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss made some important observations about findings of fact and expert evidence. It shows the importance of primary findings of fact and the limitations of expert evidence. …

THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS

THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS

October 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) is one that has already made headlines.  There is much of interest. However, that  part of the judgment that deals with the analysis of…

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…

← Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 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

  • WEBINAR ON PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: 9th SEPTEMBER 2026: USEFUL GUIDANCE, CHECKLISTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
  • SHOULD (OR CAN) THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE WHEN THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT IS BASED IN ITALY? ANOTHER PAD APPLICATION COMES TO GRIEF…
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY:”WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN THINGS GO WRONG BLAME THE SOLICITOR” (SEPTEMBER 2016)
  • SHOULD THE COURT ORDER PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE? THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED AND THE COURT WOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN ANY EVENT
  • COST BITES 446 : SHOULD THE COURT HAVE MADE A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER? SHOULD THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED AND WAS THE COURT BOUND TO ACCEPT HIS EVIDENCE?

Top Posts

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DENTON AND DELAY: SHOULD THE COURT REFUSE THE DEFENDANT RELIEF BECAUSE THEY HAD CAUSED UNNECESSARY DELAY AND COSTS?
DEALING WITH FISH FILES, PROCRASTINATION AND DELAY: THE LITIGATOR'S FRIEND: A REMINDER OF USEFUL LINKS, POSTS AND GUIDANCE AND SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: "BACKDATING LETTERS" TO DELIBERATELY MISLEAD COULD COST YOU: £4.58 MILLION IN THIS CASE: (METADATA COMES INTO PLAY NOW)
COST BITES 443: USEFUL CHECKLISTS: A CHECKLIST ON COSTS IN HOUSING DISREPAIR CASES (FOR CLAIMANTS)
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW SERIES 4: A RECAP OF THE PREVIOUS SERIES AND THE DEADLY SINS OF ADVOCATES: DON'T BE CONFUSING OR BORING

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.