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 witness » Page 5
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…

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…

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

September 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to  Graham Hain  for pointing out the decision of  the Upper Tribunal (Lands) Chamber in Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO) (RATING – procedure) [2018] UKUT 253 (LC). This specifically relates to experts in the Lands Chamber,…

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

August 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert.  The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…

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…

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…

NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE "BEYOND" THE 11th HOUR NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED IN THE TCC

NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE “BEYOND” THE 11th HOUR NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED IN THE TCC

December 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd [2017] EWHC 3092 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson overturned a decision giving a counterclaiming defendant permission to rely upon an expert report on quantum shortly before trial. The case is an example…

WITNESSES, SURVEILLANCE, DEMEANOUR AND EXPERTS - IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CREDIBILITY: A  PERFORMER UNLIKELY TO FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

WITNESSES, SURVEILLANCE, DEMEANOUR AND EXPERTS – IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CREDIBILITY: A PERFORMER UNLIKELY TO FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

October 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

We have already looked at judge’s observations as to the amount of material before the court in the case of  Miley v Friends Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 2415 (QB). It was a case that rested upon credibility. Surveillance evidence, expert evidence and…

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…

BUNDLES WERE A DOG'S DINNER: MISSING WITNESSES AND AN EXPERT WITH NO CONCEPT OF HIS DUTY TO THE COURT

BUNDLES WERE A DOG’S DINNER: MISSING WITNESSES AND AN EXPERT WITH NO CONCEPT OF HIS DUTY TO THE COURT

July 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Bundles, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Bank of Ireland -v- Watts Group PLC   [2017]EWHC 1667 (TCC) exemplifies many of the issues in litigation that are regularly covered in this blog: bundles, missing witnesses and errant experts. In particular…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY ON AN QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION: SNEAKING EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE IS STRUCK OUT

February 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

We have seen several examples of litigants attempting to give “expert” evidence in their witness statements.  This practice was considered by Master Matthews in Change Red Limited -v- Barclays Bank PLC [2016] EWHC 3489 (Ch). The Master was considering whether…

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…

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…

WHAT IS MEANT BY AN "INDEPENDENT" EXPERT? CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK III

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

In Hopkinson -v- Hickton [2016] EWCA Civ 1057 the Court of Appeal considered what was meant by an “independent” expert. KEY POINTS The fact that a valuer, appointed to value a property by the parties under the terms of a…

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAWYER AND EXPERT: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK II

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

We have already looked at the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21 in relation to costs budgeting. Here I want to isolate one aspect of that budgeting exercise – in relation to…

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 CREDIBILITY, DELAY AND DENTON.

November 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There is an interesting discussion of  the credibility  of witnesses in the judgment of Mr Registrar Briggs in Preston -v- Green (Liquidator of Cre8atsea Limited) [2016] EWHC 25222 (Ch). The Registrar also had to consider whether to exercise his discretion…

ANOTHER EXPERT WITNESS GOES AWRY: PATENTLY A PROBLEM

October 30, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

It is easy for the non-technical reader to pass over judgments relating to patents. These often involve highly technical issues.  However there is one aspect of the judgment in Thoratec Europe Limited -v- AIS GMBH Aachen Innovative Solutions [2016] EWHC…

WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE: A MASTERLY EXPOSITION

October 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Matthews in Darby Properties Ltd -v- Lloyds Bank Plc [2016] 2494 (Ch) contains an important consideration of the rules relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. In particular when is expert evidence “necessary”? “… although I…

JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF WHICH EXPERT IS PREFERRED

October 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is a short passage in the judgment in Barclays Bank PLC -v- Christie Owen & Davies Limited [2016] EWHC 2351 (Ch) which considers the appropriate approach of the court when considering expert evidence. “To consider simply whether to prefer…

AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)

August 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

In the Matter of F (a Minor)  EWHC 2149 (Fam)Mr Justice Hayden had to consider whether an expert report should be admitted in a family case.  The comments on the expert evidence are of general relevance. “The overall impression is…

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…

ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT

August 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Damages, Default judgment,, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in  Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation.   In addition to…

PROVING THINGS 28: MAKE UNWARRANTED PERSONAL ATTACKS AND USE A "MUD-SLINGING" EXPERT: THAT ALWAYS ENDS WELL

August 1, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Scott -v- E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting & Civil Engineering Ltd [2016] 1949 (TCC) contains some surprising observations. It also contains important lessons in relation to “conspiracy” theories in litigation and the role of the…

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…

EXPERTS:YOU'RE NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE FAMOUS: A DECISION NOT WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF A FAG PACKET

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

The judgment of Mr Justice Green  in British American Tobacco (UK) Limited -v- Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 1169 is 1,000 paragraphs long. It covers many aspects of law and procedure. I want to concentrate upon one issue….

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…

PROVING THINGS 15: DAMAGES & EVIDENCE: GOING BACK TO COLLEGE

April 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

One harsh shock for many litigants occurs when they are asked to prove their damages at trial. We have looked several times when a litigant has come to grief at this stage, largely because there is no evidential support for…

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…

EXPERTS AND FACTS: IT IS ALL IN THE RULES

February 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

Following the post yesterday about proving things and the role of experts there was an interesting comment from Elfed Williams. WHAT DOES AN EXPERT DO ABOUT FACTS? “I have some misgivings about whether an expert should identify primary facts and…

PROVING THINGS 9: THE ROLE OF EXPERTS

February 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

Here I want to pick up on a few observations of Mr Justice Snowden in Grant -v-Ralls [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch) a case we looked at yesterday.   That is the role of the experts. It is dangerous to defer the “proving”…

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…

LATE EXPERT EVIDENCE, DENTON AND WAVING A FINGER IN THE AIR

December 4, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

The decision of the Court of Appeal in O’Connor -v- The Pennine Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA 1244 will receive much attention for the important observations made as to evidence, proof and “res ipsa loquitur”.   However here I want…

WHEN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE LAY AND EXPERT WITNESSES LIES IN SHREDS

November 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The previous post in relation to Part 36 led me to examine the substantive judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Van Oord UK Limited -v- Allseas UK Limited [2015] EWHC 3074 (TCC). It contains as damning an assessment of witness…

WITNESS EVIDENCE & THE BURDEN OF PROOF: A CIVIL TRIAL IS NOT A SEARCH FOR THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH: FOOTBALLERS ON TRIAL

October 31, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

Anyone looking for a detailed consideration of the law relating to witness evidence and the burden of proof can find it in the judgment of His Honour Judge Butler  (sitting as a High Court judge) in GB -v- Stoke City…

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…

← Previous 1 … 4 5 6 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
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
  • 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)
  • 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.