Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Experts
NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST EXPERT WITNESS SET ASIDE ON APPEAL: THE FACT THAT AN EXPERT'S CONCLUSIONS CAN BE CRITICISED DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THEIR DUTY

NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST EXPERT WITNESS SET ASIDE ON APPEAL: THE FACT THAT AN EXPERT’S CONCLUSIONS CAN BE CRITICISED DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THEIR DUTY

January 11, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

I am grateful to barrister Nadia Whittaker for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Sweeting in Robinson -v- Liverpool Hospitals NHS Trust and Mercier [2023] EWHC 21 (KB), a copy of the judgment is available here. …

CLAIMANT COULD NOT OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE USE OF A LETTER FROM AN EXPERT: AN APPARENT BREACH OF THE INDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE

CLAIMANT COULD NOT OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE USE OF A LETTER FROM AN EXPERT: AN APPARENT BREACH OF THE INDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE

September 1, 2022 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

In Pickett v Balkind [2022] EWHC 2226 (TCC) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application for an injunction to prevent the defendant relying on the contents of a letter from the claimant’s expert. That…

THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN FINDING FACTS AND ASSESSING CREDIBILITY

THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN FINDING FACTS AND ASSESSING CREDIBILITY

August 26, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

The recent posts on the assessment of witness credibility led an expert witness to enquire whether it was the function of an expert to comment on issues relating to credibility. There have been a number of  cases where judges have…

AN EXPERT WHO TENDED TOWARDS BEING AN ADVOCATE: YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER CASE: THE NEED FOR A MEASURED RESPONSE

AN EXPERT WHO TENDED TOWARDS BEING AN ADVOCATE: YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER CASE: THE NEED FOR A MEASURED RESPONSE

August 17, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts

It may be indicative that there are such a large number of cases where judges have criticised experts for veering towards advocacy that I sometimes hesitate as to whether they merit writing about. However such a tendency was noted by…

APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS "FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS"

APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”

July 19, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Coronavirus, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence.  The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…

THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: KEY ISSUES, PROBLEM AREAS AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS: WEBINAR 30th JUNE 2022

THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: KEY ISSUES, PROBLEM AREAS AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS: WEBINAR 30th JUNE 2022

May 6, 2022 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

We have recently  seen a  case where a party disallowed from using an expert due to conduct at the joint meeting of experts stage. The meeting of experts is now a key stage in much major litigation.  Knowledge of the…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: KNOWING WHERE IT CAN ALL GO WRONG  – AND AVOIDING PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY OCCUR:WEBINAR ON EXPERTS AND FOR EXPERTS: 21st MARCH 2022

EXPERT EVIDENCE: KNOWING WHERE IT CAN ALL GO WRONG – AND AVOIDING PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY OCCUR:WEBINAR ON EXPERTS AND FOR EXPERTS: 21st MARCH 2022

March 17, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

A number of recent cases have emphasised the importance of those who instruct experts, and experts themselves, being fully aware of the nature and scope of the duties of an expert.  This webinar looks at cases where experts have gone…

EXPERTS GOING WRONG - AGAIN : THIS TIME IT HAS COST (SOMEONE) £225,000: THE WORK TURNS INTO DUST

EXPERTS GOING WRONG – AGAIN : THIS TIME IT HAS COST (SOMEONE) £225,000: THE WORK TURNS INTO DUST

March 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

It is rare for me to write about judgments from secondary sources.  However the judgment of Senior Master Fontaine in Patricia Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited [2022] EWHC 479 (QB)   is noted in two reliable sources and it is a case…

PUTTING A CAP ON THE COSTS OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT: AN UNHAPPY TALE WITH LESSONS TO BE LEARNT

PUTTING A CAP ON THE COSTS OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT: AN UNHAPPY TALE WITH LESSONS TO BE LEARNT

January 27, 2022 · by gexall · in Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

For the second time today I am writing about a case concerning a jointly instructed expert. In Loggie v Loggie [2022] EWFC 2 Mr Justice Mostyn had to determine who should pay the costs of an expert whose final costs…

DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE PART 35 DUTY OWED TO THE COURT: JUDGE ISSUES REMINDER

DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE PART 35 DUTY OWED TO THE COURT: JUDGE ISSUES REMINDER

January 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Experts

The previous post looked at the rejection of allegations of fundamental dishonesty in  Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB). That judgment also contains some observations in relation to several of the medical experts called on behalf of the…

EXPERT HAD A "FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR HIS DUTY TO THE COURT": ORDERED TO PAY £50,500 WASTED COSTS

EXPERT HAD A “FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR HIS DUTY TO THE COURT”: ORDERED TO PAY £50,500 WASTED COSTS

November 2, 2021 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Wasted Costs

NB – THE COSTS ORDER AGAINST THE EXPERT IN THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL.  THE JUDGMENT ON APPEAL CAN BE FOUND HERE. The judgment of Recorder Hudson in Robinson -v- Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Dr Chris…

EXPERT EVIDENCE – UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS AND AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 20th OCTOBER 2020

EXPERT EVIDENCE – UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS AND AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 20th OCTOBER 2020

October 14, 2021 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

The last few months have seen a large number of cases where expert evidence has proved highly problematic (usually for the party calling the expert in question). On the 20th October 2021 I am giving a webinar “Expert Evidence –…

GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (1): JUDGES AND EXPERTS: THE COURT IS NOT A RUBBER STAMP

GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (1): JUDGES AND EXPERTS: THE COURT IS NOT A RUBBER STAMP

October 10, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

This is the first of a series of posts that consider the Court of Appeal judgment in  Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1442.  That decision has considerable practical consequences for experts and any litigator commissioning or challenging…

PROVING THINGS 216: THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT REPORT TO PROVE VALUE

PROVING THINGS 216: THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT REPORT TO PROVE VALUE

September 3, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Experts

There are some similarities between the case of Serene Construction Ltd v Salata and Associates Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2433 (Ch) and the previous post in this series. In both cases the claimant’s case related to the valuation of…

PROVING THINGS 215: CLAIM £8.7 MILLION IN DAMAGES BUT RECOVER NOTHING: NOT SO MUCH A CASE OF EXPERT SHOPPING BUT EXPERTS ON SHOPPING CENTRES

PROVING THINGS 215: CLAIM £8.7 MILLION IN DAMAGES BUT RECOVER NOTHING: NOT SO MUCH A CASE OF EXPERT SHOPPING BUT EXPERTS ON SHOPPING CENTRES

September 2, 2021 · by gexall · in Damages, Experts

We have looked before at the judgment of HHJ Hodge (sitting as a High Court judge) in Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd & Anor (CONTRACT – Purchase of commercial investment property) [2021] EWHC 2382 (Ch).  It is worth noting that…

ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE AND APPLICATION MADE FAR TOO LATE

ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE AND APPLICATION MADE FAR TOO LATE

August 24, 2021 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Relief from sanctions

In Fraine v Foy [2021] EWHC 2302 (Ch) Master Clark refused an application to rely on expert evidence that was served the day before the hearing.  The expert evidence was not relevant, not admissible and the application made far too…

QUESTIONS TO EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE THE TRIAL:  THE WRITING MAY BE ON THE WALL FOR LATE CHALLENGES

QUESTIONS TO EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE THE TRIAL: THE WRITING MAY BE ON THE WALL FOR LATE CHALLENGES

August 12, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

For the second time in two days I am reporting on cases where judges made the point that issues relating to evidence should have been raised before trial.  Yesterday Mr Justice Zacaroli held that issues in relation to disclosure should…

EXPERT EVIDENCE, NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND ADMISSIBILITY: BOP-ME, MASKS AND EXPERTISE

EXPERT EVIDENCE, NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND ADMISSIBILITY: BOP-ME, MASKS AND EXPERTISE

July 5, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts

There is an interesting discussion of the use of expert evidence in the context of specialist proceedings in the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Bop-Me Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC…

WHEN A PARTY WANTS TO CHANGE ITS EXPERT: PRE-ACTION REPORTS, "EXPERT SHOPPING" AND CANDOUR

WHEN A PARTY WANTS TO CHANGE ITS EXPERT: PRE-ACTION REPORTS, “EXPERT SHOPPING” AND CANDOUR

July 2, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

In the judgment today in Rogerson (t/a Cottesmore Hotel, Golf and Country Club) v Eco Top Heat & Power Ltd [2021] EWHC 1807 (TCC) Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the circumstances in…

"THERE IS A WORRYING TREND... IN TERMS OF FAILURE BY EXPERTS GENERALLY IN LITIGATION COMPLYING WITH THEIR DUTIES"

“THERE IS A WORRYING TREND… IN TERMS OF FAILURE BY EXPERTS GENERALLY IN LITIGATION COMPLYING WITH THEIR DUTIES”

June 10, 2021 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

There is an important point about a litigant’s responsibility for the conduct of their own experts (and expert’s conduct generally) in Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd (No. 2 Costs) [2021] EWHC 1414 (TCC). This was…

1 2 … 7 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31,040 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN AN INVOICE WAS DOCTORED: NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE SAID WITH FLOWERS
  • ITS OFFICIAL – THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER: READ IT HERE: CONTEST WINNER
  • DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT “WAREHOUSING” AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY
  • UNDERSTANDING THE LAW RELATING TO FATAL ACCIDENTS: WEBINAR 8th FEBRUARY 2023
  • CLAIMANT FAILS IN AN APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN LAWYERS: HOWEVER THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON HERE

Top Posts & Pages

  • ITS OFFICIAL - THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER: READ IT HERE: CONTEST WINNER
  • FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN AN INVOICE WAS DOCTORED: NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE SAID WITH FLOWERS
  • CLAIMANT FAILS IN AN APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN LAWYERS: HOWEVER THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON HERE
  • NO DUTY ON A PARTY TO INFORM AN OPPOSING PARTY THEY ARE MAKING AN ERROR: THE APPEAL JUDGMENT IN PHOENIX IN FULL:
  • WHAT IS THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER? THE ENTRIES

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin