Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Experts » Page 2
EXPERT WATCH 9: FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL AND TO INFORM THE EXPERTS OF THE DEFENDANT'S CASE COULD RENDER THE EVIDENCE "USELESS": AN EXPENSIVE DAY OUT FOR THE CLAIMANTS' SOLICITORS...

EXPERT WATCH 9: FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL AND TO INFORM THE EXPERTS OF THE DEFENDANT’S CASE COULD RENDER THE EVIDENCE “USELESS”: AN EXPENSIVE DAY OUT FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS…

August 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Here we look at a decision not about the conduct of experts but the way in which the experts were instructed and failure to comply with pre-action protocols.  On the face of it this is a decision of major importance…

EXPERT WATCH 8: "SCIENCE DOES NOT CHANGE" : EVIDENCE THAT WAS "UNIMPRESSIVE IN PARTS AND OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT"

EXPERT WATCH 8: “SCIENCE DOES NOT CHANGE” : EVIDENCE THAT WAS “UNIMPRESSIVE IN PARTS AND OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT”

August 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

To end the week I am looking at another decision about expert witnesses (it has been a theme this week). This time  we are looking at accident reconstruction experts.  One expert was found wanting, the judge favoured the other.  The…

EXPERT WATCH 7: “THIS CASE IS NOT SHORT OF ADVOCATES”: AN EXPERT REPORTING FOR THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM: FURTHER THEY SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THAT THEY HAD “COPIED” THEIR REPORT

August 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Yesterday I imposed a 24 hour respite on this series “unless something really interesting comes up”.  I have broken that promise, it lasted 22 hours. However the cases on experts keep coming in and, I think, readers need to know…

EXPERT WATCH 4: THE EXPERT SHOULD INFORM THE COURT IF MEMBERSHIP OF A PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION HAD CEASED, PARTICULARLY IF THIS IS LINKED TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are returning (and not for the last time) to a recent decision where the court considered the expert evidence in detail. Here we look at the judgment in relation to an expert who failed, until prompted, to inform the…

EXPERT WATCH 3: EVIDENCE FROM EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: SOME OF THE EXPERTS FOUND WANTING

EXPERT WATCH 3: EVIDENCE FROM EXPERTS ON FOREIGN LAW: SOME OF THE EXPERTS FOUND WANTING

July 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Here we are looking at a judge’s assessment of witnesses who gave evidence as to foreign law.  Some of the witnesses were found to be less then helpful. (This case appears to have taken up several months of court time….

EXPERT WATCH 2: THE EXPERT WHO REPORTED WITHOUT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO HAND AND THEN WOULD NOT RECOGNISE HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE

July 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we look at a case where an expert reported without having all the relevant evidence to hand. In fact he only saw the claimant’s witness statements a few days before the trial. This, added to other issues, led to…

EXPERT WATCH 1: THE DUTY TO STATE THE SOURCES OF THE EXPERT’S INFORMATION

July 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is the start of a series examining cases where expert evidence is considered by the courts. As matters stand there are already dozens of posts on this site where the conduct of experts has been considered (and often criticised)…

WHEN A PARTY RELIES ON "NON PART 35 COMPLIANT" EXPERT REPORTS: THIS IS HARDLY LIKELY TO CARRY MUCH WEIGHT...

WHEN A PARTY RELIES ON “NON PART 35 COMPLIANT” EXPERT REPORTS: THIS IS HARDLY LIKELY TO CARRY MUCH WEIGHT…

July 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The first question the lawyer must ask when being presented with a report for use in proceeding  is – is this report CPR 35 compliant? If it is not then it may have little, if any value.  There is a…

IF A CLAIMANT ISSUES AND LITIGATES WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE CAPACITY - ARE THEY LIABLE FOR THE COSTS INCURRED? COURT OF APPEAL SCRUTINISES EXPERT EVIDENCE AND FINDS IT WANTING

IF A CLAIMANT ISSUES AND LITIGATES WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE CAPACITY – ARE THEY LIABLE FOR THE COSTS INCURRED? COURT OF APPEAL SCRUTINISES EXPERT EVIDENCE AND FINDS IT WANTING

July 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Yesterday we looked at issues relating to the capacity of a solicitor’s client and their consequent liability to pay costs.  Today we look at a case about inter partes costs. If a claimant brings proceedings but does not, in fact,…

WHEN A PARTY MAKES A SECOND APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT WITNESS HOW SHOULD THE COURT RESPOND? THE SAGA CONTINUED

July 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are looking at this case for the third time.   There were issues in relation to witness evidence and expert evidence. The problems continued after trial when the judge realised that neither party had addressed her on a mandatory requirement…

IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITICISE AN EXPERT THIS MUCH YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING: HIGH COURT REJECTS EACH PARTY'S ATTACKS ON OPPONENT'S EXPERTS

IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITICISE AN EXPERT THIS MUCH YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING: HIGH COURT REJECTS EACH PARTY’S ATTACKS ON OPPONENT’S EXPERTS

June 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have seen plenty of cases where the courts have not been slow in their criticism of expert witnesses. Here we have a different situation where the judge was critical of the attacks, by each party, on the credibility of…

HOW FAR IS A TRIAL JUDGE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE VIEWS OF A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT? WELL – READ THIS FOR SOME TRENCHANT VIEWS…

June 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

When the parties jointly instruct an expert how far is the judge “bound” by the views that the expert reaches?  This is an issue we are looking at for the second time within 6 days.  We have an interesting consideration…

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL AGENCY/FEE BREAKDOWN CONFLICT: THERE ARE LOTS OF CASES TO CHOOSE FROM...

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL AGENCY/FEE BREAKDOWN CONFLICT: THERE ARE LOTS OF CASES TO CHOOSE FROM…

June 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Express Solicitors for sending me a transcript of a judgment that marks another round in the fee note/medical agency/provide a breakdown conflict.  Here we have the judge considering whether a breakdown, incorporating the percentage taken by…

WHEN THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT REPORT  IS OF "LITTLE OR NO" ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT: A CASE IN POINT

WHEN THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT REPORT IS OF “LITTLE OR NO” ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT: A CASE IN POINT

June 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The courts encourages the use of jointly instructed experts   However this does not mean that the case, or even key issues in the case, are necessarily determined by those experts.   Here we have a case where the judge held that…

WHICH EXPERT WITNESS IS GOING TO BE PREFERRED? ONE EXPERT TOOK AN "UNREALISTIC APPROACH"

WHICH EXPERT WITNESS IS GOING TO BE PREFERRED? ONE EXPERT TOOK AN “UNREALISTIC APPROACH”

June 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury, Risks of litigation

Knowing the reasons why a judge may prefer the evidence of  one expert over another is an important part of a litigator’s skill.  Each case is, of course, fact specific, but there are clear trends that can be discerned.  Here…

SHOULD A PARTY BE ABLE TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT WHEN THEY DISAGREE WITH THE REPORT OF A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED

SHOULD A PARTY BE ABLE TO INSTRUCT THEIR OWN EXPERT WHEN THEY DISAGREE WITH THE REPORT OF A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED

June 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Here we are looking at a case where a party, dissatisfied with the approach of a jointly instructed expert, applied to the court for permission to instruct their own expert. The judgment contains a useful summary of the relevant principles….

PART 35 QUESTIONS TO EXPERTS A POINT ABOUT THE CASE LAW: HOW FAR CAN THE QUESTIONS GO? A CLOSE LOOK AT THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN MUTCH

PART 35 QUESTIONS TO EXPERTS A POINT ABOUT THE CASE LAW: HOW FAR CAN THE QUESTIONS GO? A CLOSE LOOK AT THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN MUTCH

June 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The previous post about when experts should be called to give evidence also contained a consideration of the nature of questions that can be put to experts.  One of my colleagues has suggested that the summary relating to the questioning…

WHEN SHOULD PARTIES BE ALLOWED TO CALL EXPERT WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED (IN THE FAMILY COURT)

WHEN SHOULD PARTIES BE ALLOWED TO CALL EXPERT WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED (IN THE FAMILY COURT)

June 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

When should the courts permit experts to give evidence at trial?  There are few cases on this topic and today we are looking at a decision in the family courts. The case is relevant to civil practitioners in that it…

YOU SPENT £1.2 MILLION ON EXPERTS AND IT WAS MAINLY MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN: DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO RECOVER 20% OF FEES INCURRED

YOU SPENT £1.2 MILLION ON EXPERTS AND IT WAS MAINLY MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN: DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO RECOVER 20% OF FEES INCURRED

May 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Sometimes you have to go looking for a pun as a headline for a blog post. Often they simply write themselves. In a case involving water companies who spent £1.2 million on experts,  this was one of these cases.  The…

EXPERTS IN COURT: "TRESPASSING ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION" AND "SEEKING TO ADVOCATE" ON BEHALF OF PARTY: THIS RARELY ENDS WELL...

EXPERTS IN COURT: “TRESPASSING ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION” AND “SEEKING TO ADVOCATE” ON BEHALF OF PARTY: THIS RARELY ENDS WELL…

May 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is no shortage of posts on this blogs where judges are critical of expert witnesses. Today we look at another such case where the judge found the expert’s approach “concerning” and went on to state that the expert was…

THE COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPERT EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUE A TERM IN AN AGREEMENT: AN EXPERT CANNOT BE USED TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT

THE COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPERT EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUE A TERM IN AN AGREEMENT: AN EXPERT CANNOT BE USED TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT

May 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Is an expert needed to construe a contractual agreement.  Here we have a case where the Master was very much against the applicant who sought permission to rely on an expert.   An expert was not needed to report on market…

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE RISKS OF "ANCHORING": THE EXPERT "GAVE THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ARGUE THE CLAIMANT'S CASE"

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE RISKS OF “ANCHORING”: THE EXPERT “GAVE THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ARGUE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE”

May 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Today we are looking at a case where the judge had considerable reservations about expert evidence called on behalf of a claimant.  Not all the problems that occurred were the fault of the expert.  However she was the third expert…

THE RICS PRACTICE ALERT  ON ACTING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN HOUSING DISREPAIR AND OTHER HIGH VOLUME CASES: OF INTEREST TO ALL EXPERTS (AND THOSE WHO INSTRUCT THEM)

THE RICS PRACTICE ALERT ON ACTING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN HOUSING DISREPAIR AND OTHER HIGH VOLUME CASES: OF INTEREST TO ALL EXPERTS (AND THOSE WHO INSTRUCT THEM)

May 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

The RICS has produced a Practice Alert aimed specifically at those acting as expert witnesses in housing disrepair and other high volume cases.  It some ways the Alert is surprising in that it says nothing new, that is most of…

EXPERT REPORTS AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED IN THE COURTS AGAIN: LEADS TO A DOCTOR BEING ERASED FROM THE REGISTER OF DOCTORS

EXPERT REPORTS AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED IN THE COURTS AGAIN: LEADS TO A DOCTOR BEING ERASED FROM THE REGISTER OF DOCTORS

April 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment in Moodliar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 913 (Admin) provides a salutary reminder to medical experts that giving expert evidence is a highly significant task.  Failures in the process can lead to erasure from the medical register,…

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Sarah Jane Young v John Anthony Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177 the Court of Appeal sent out another reminder that there are difficulties in trial judges attempting to override the views of expert witnesses.       “… in the circumstances…

EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025

EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

I am giving a webinar for  the Steve Cornforth Consultance on the 14th May 2025.  It is aimed at housing lawyers and aims to have a comprehensive look at the rules, guidance and cases on the use of experts in…

PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT

PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC dismissed the claimant’s application that forensic accountants give evidence at trial.  The experts had basically agreed that there were issues of fact to…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS "APPALLING": ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS "TERRIFYING"

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS “APPALLING”: ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS “TERRIFYING”

April 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 HHJ Kathryn Major (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) was severely critical of the medical evidence called by the local authority.  That part of the…

PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:

PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:

March 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In H&P Advisory Limited v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Limited (formerly Randgold Resources Limited) [2025] EWHC 562 (Ch)   Mr Simon Gleeson found that the experts for each party were of no assistance in assessing the value of the work done by…

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors,  for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here.   It is a case…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is a consideration of the principles relating to the use of expert evidence in the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Cohen & Ors v Co-operative Group Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 526 (Ch).  The judge rejected the claimants’…

AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH EXPERT WITNESSES: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2025: DEALS WITH SOME "INTERESTING" ISSUES: EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY

AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH EXPERT WITNESSES: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2025: DEALS WITH SOME “INTERESTING” ISSUES: EXPERTS BEHAVING BADLY

February 25, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

This webinar deals, among other things, with three cases where solicitors have been struck off the Roll because of their conduct with expert witnesses. In one of those cases the solicitor also went to prison. The Court of Appeal held…

EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED

EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED

February 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2025] EWHC 272 (KB) HHJ Bird (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered which expert should be accepted in the context of a case against the police.  He preferred the expert with…

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025

February 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

Expert evidence plays a critical, often decisive, role in clinical negligence litigation. An ability to assess expert evidence is a key part of the litigator’s role.  This webinar looks at the rules and cases that govern the credibility of expert…

CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE - BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE – BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

February 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Professor Keith Rix for allowing me to use an article that appears in February’s Expert Healthcare Witness Matters*.  This deals with the question of whether an expert can, or should, agree to act on a conditional…

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

This blog regularly features cases where there have been issues, sometimes major problems, with expert evidence.  This webinar takes a close look at the factors that the courts take into account when considering which expert’s view should be accepted.  It…

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have looked at the judgment in Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as  Judge of the High Court) before, in the context of the failure of committal proceedings following an earlier finding…

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN "INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION": A REPORT WAS "IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE"

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN “INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION”: A REPORT WAS “IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE”

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected the applicant’s application to rely on expert evidence.   The proposed expert report was to “uncertain” and, in any event, unlikely to assist…

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

January 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  JXX v Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley considered the – much debated and litigated – issue of whether there needs to be  breakdown of an expert’s fee when the expert is instructed through an agency.  The…

CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF IN 2024: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES

CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF IN 2024: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES

December 28, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

As 2024 draws to a close this is  a good time to look back at the year in terms of civil procedure.   There have been 463 posts  to date this year amounting to 938 thousand words (I haven’t counted them…

AN EXPERT WHO "HAD NO REGARD TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION" AND "WHO WAS PREPARED MATERIALLY TO MISLEAD THE COURT"

AN EXPERT WHO “HAD NO REGARD TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION” AND “WHO WAS PREPARED MATERIALLY TO MISLEAD THE COURT”

December 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer made extremely trenchant findings about the conduct of an expert witness instructed on behalf of the claimants.  There was no compliance with Rules or Guidance for…

EXPERTS AND THE COURTS: DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024: "WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL?": SOME INTERESTING WEBINARS IN THE NEAR FUTURE

EXPERTS AND THE COURTS: DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024: “WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL?”: SOME INTERESTING WEBINARS IN THE NEAR FUTURE

December 9, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

Issues relating to expert evidence have formed a large part of the material considered in this blog so far this year.  The webinar on the 11th December reviews the key cases and their significance for practitioners and experts alike.  Webinars…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: FALSE EVIDENCE: A FALSE CV: "I AM ENTITLED TO REJECT THE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FACTUAL BASIS"

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: FALSE EVIDENCE: A FALSE CV: “I AM ENTITLED TO REJECT THE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FACTUAL BASIS”

December 5, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Amy Birchall of HF solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bird in Scully -v- Atherton (& others).  The judge found that the claimant (someone who had held a number of jobs…

THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT "ARGUMENTS" SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN

THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT “ARGUMENTS” SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN

November 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Norman v N & CJ Horton Property [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) Master Clark found that proposed “expert evidence” was not evidence at all but simply opinions.  The person preparing the report was not allowed to give expert evidence on…

COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL

COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL

November 26, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Hot on the heels of publishing the previous post in relation to the judge’s refusal to order a breakdown of the agency fees involved in a medical report I received a copy of a case from Ben Millns of Kennedys. …

EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT

EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT

November 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision in  T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 1384 is an appeal in a family court case. It contains important observations in relation to attempts to adduce new evidence at the appeal stage.  Equally…

CLAIM AGAINST ALLEGEDLY DISHONEST EXPERT NOT STRUCK OUT: THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL

CLAIM AGAINST ALLEGEDLY DISHONEST EXPERT NOT STRUCK OUT: THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL

November 6, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Striking out

In  EUI Ltd (t/a Admiral) v Smith [2024] EWHC 2803 (KB) Mr Justice Griffiths refused an expert’s application to strike out the case against him.  He upheld the decision of the Circuit Judge and stated that the issues should go…

WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN'T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING...

WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN’T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING…

October 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have considered the dangers of attempting to use artificial intelligence in litigation before.   The use of artificial intelligence in an expert report was considered b Schopf.S in the Surrogate’s Court, Saratoga County, in the “Matter of Weber”. “The mere…

EXPERTS CAN BE ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION ON MATTERS OF FACT, EVEN WHEN THOSE FACTS ARE ULTIMATELY FOR THE COURT

EXPERTS CAN BE ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION ON MATTERS OF FACT, EVEN WHEN THOSE FACTS ARE ULTIMATELY FOR THE COURT

October 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is a short passage in the judgment of Master Davison in  The Owners of the “Christos Theo” v The Owners of the “Aliki” [2024] EWHC 2106 (Admlty) which deals with an issue rarely considered by the courts – how…

AN EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE "CORRUPTED" BY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: "THERE SHOULD BE SOME INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS"

AN EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE “CORRUPTED” BY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: “THERE SHOULD BE SOME INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS”

September 25, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are returning once again to the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB).We are also returning to the question of expert evidence.  There…

← Previous 1 2 3 … 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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN OFFER TO SETTLE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROVISION FOR COSTS MAY WELL BE INEFFECTIVE: IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT LEAD TO A PETITION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
  • IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL – MAKE SURE YOU ARE AVAILABLE…: JUDGE SAYS THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THIS ISSUE
  • COST BITES 398: MORE BUDGETING IN THE MERCEDES-BENZ LITIGATION: ONLY A “MODEST” REDUCTION OF £1 MILLION HERE: BUT WHY (THE COURT ASKS) WEREN’T REALISTICALLY REDUCED FIGURES PUT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: “AVOID BULLSHIT, SMOKE AND MIRRORS” (OH AND “WELL PADDED VANITY” (JUNE 2016
  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.