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 4
THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

THE KING’S BENCH DIVISION GUIDE: THE NEW BITS (1): LAWYERS STAY OUT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

May 22, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

A new edition of the King’s Bench Division Guide was published last week (although it is dated March 2023).  I will take a short look at the major changes. Firstly looking at a new passage in relation to the instruction…

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: LEARNING FROM RECENT CASES: WEBINAR 5th JUNE 2023

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: LEARNING FROM RECENT CASES: WEBINAR 5th JUNE 2023

May 15, 2023 · by gexall · in Liability, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

Contributory negligence is one of those issues that play a daily part of the life of the personal injury practitioner.  The basic principles  underlying findings of contributory negligence are rarely explored, however these can have profound practical implications for the…

BEWARE OF OVER-EAGER EXPERTS: AN EXPERT THAT SIMPLY ADDRESSES THE POINTS THAT SUPPORTS THEIR HYPOTHESIS IS HEADING FOR TROUBLE

BEWARE OF OVER-EAGER EXPERTS: AN EXPERT THAT SIMPLY ADDRESSES THE POINTS THAT SUPPORTS THEIR HYPOTHESIS IS HEADING FOR TROUBLE

April 26, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, Deceased & Anor [2023] EWHC 931 (KB) HHL Sephton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) was critical of the role of one of the experts in the case. “A second reason…

EXPERT WITNESS OBTAINS ANONYMITY: BUT THEIR TONE DEMONSTRATED DISRESPECT FOR THE COURT

EXPERT WITNESS OBTAINS ANONYMITY: BUT THEIR TONE DEMONSTRATED DISRESPECT FOR THE COURT

April 12, 2023 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

An earlier post dealt with the judge’s decision in M v F & Anor [2022] EWFC.  However there is a subsequent judgment that demonstrates an extraordinary response on the part of the expert involved.  In a second judgment,  M v F &…

PARTS OF THE EXPERT'S REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RED FLAG TO LAWYERS: JUDGE CONSIDERS WHETHER THE PARTIES HAD INSTRUCTED THE CORRECT EXPERT

PARTS OF THE EXPERT’S REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RED FLAG TO LAWYERS: JUDGE CONSIDERS WHETHER THE PARTIES HAD INSTRUCTED THE CORRECT EXPERT

April 12, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In M v F & Anor [2022] EWFC 186 Recorder Reed set out the importance of an expert knowing, and complying with, the rules relating to the presentation of expert evidence.  The judgment also emphasises the importance of the lawyers…

COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO CLAIMANTS TO CHANGE EXPERTS: BUT WITH CONDITIONS

COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO CLAIMANTS TO CHANGE EXPERTS: BUT WITH CONDITIONS

April 11, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The principles relating to the court granting permission to a party to change expert were considered in detail by Mrs Justice O’Farrell in  Avantage (Cheshire) Ltd & Ors v GB Building Solutions Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 802 (TCC).  The…

HANDWRITING EXPERTS COME UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE NOT ACCEPTED

HANDWRITING EXPERTS COME UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE NOT ACCEPTED

April 4, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Issues relating to handwriting experts comprise a surprisingly large percentage of the search terms that lead to this blog.  The question of the quality of such experts was considered by Master Clark in Watts v Watts [2023] EWHC 679 (Ch)….

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT'S EXPERT EVIDENCE: A TRIAL JUDGE CAN HANDLE EXPERT WITNESSES AT EVERY POINT OF THE SPECTRUM

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT EVIDENCE: A TRIAL JUDGE CAN HANDLE EXPERT WITNESSES AT EVERY POINT OF THE SPECTRUM

March 10, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Fawcett & Ors v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 400 (KB) Mr Dexter Dias KC (setting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application to exclude the defendant’s expert evidence.  The matters to which the claimant objected…

SPORTING INJURIES AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: WHEN THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERT CONCEDES THE CLAIMANT'S CASE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION

SPORTING INJURIES AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: WHEN THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT CONCEDES THE CLAIMANT’S CASE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION

February 23, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

The judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB) contains important observations in relation to the duty of care owed to those taking place in sporting activities.  It also shows the important role of…

YOU'VE INSTRUCTED THE WRONG EXPERT: AND THIS HAS MAJOR CONSEQUENCES

YOU’VE INSTRUCTED THE WRONG EXPERT: AND THIS HAS MAJOR CONSEQUENCES

February 22, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in GKE v Gunning [2023] EWHC 332 (KB). This time to look at the judge’s observations on the claimant’s expert on liability.   The judge observed that the claimant had instructed the…

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content, 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, Members Content, 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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content, 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, Members Content, 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, Members Content

NB THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GRIFFITHS WAS OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT, SEE THE DISCUSSION HERE. This is the first of a series of posts that consider the Court of Appeal judgment in  Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd…

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content, 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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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, Members Content

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…

THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WHEN A JUDGE HAS LIMITED THE SCOPE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP A GOOD IMAGE

THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WHEN A JUDGE HAS LIMITED THE SCOPE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP A GOOD IMAGE

April 12, 2021 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Another aspect of the judgement of Master Davison in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) was a decision in relation to expert evidence.  The Master refused the claimant’s application to rely on amended medical reports.   Those reports…

EXPERT WITNESSES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DECISION TO ERASE DOCTOR FROM RECORD BECAUSE OF HIS CONDUCT AS AN EXPERT WITNESS

EXPERT WITNESSES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DECISION TO ERASE DOCTOR FROM RECORD BECAUSE OF HIS CONDUCT AS AN EXPERT WITNESS

March 31, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Every litigator and, particularly, every expert witness should have a very close read of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762.  Although it is a decision in the administrative court it…

SEEKING TO ADD A JOINT EXPERT INTO THE ACTION 2: A COSTLY PROCESS: INCURRING LIABILITY FOR £90,000 IN AN ATTEMPT TO RECOVER £16,000

SEEKING TO ADD A JOINT EXPERT INTO THE ACTION 2: A COSTLY PROCESS: INCURRING LIABILITY FOR £90,000 IN AN ATTEMPT TO RECOVER £16,000

February 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to my colleague Colm Nugent for giving me further details of the costs involved in the defendant’s unsuccessful application to join a joint expert into the action which was discussed in a post earlier today.  Colm also…

FAILED ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN COSTS FROM A JOINT EXPERT: A LOT TO LEARN HERE

FAILED ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN COSTS FROM A JOINT EXPERT: A LOT TO LEARN HERE

February 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Wasted Costs

In Walker -v- TUI UK Limited (Manchester County Court 14th January 2021)* District Judge Obodai considered an application by the defendant to join a jointly instructed expert into the action as a party for the purpose of obtaining costs against…

EXPERTS NOT REALLY NECESSARY WHEN A JUDGE LOOKS AT BALLET SHOES: EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EN POINTE

EXPERTS NOT REALLY NECESSARY WHEN A JUDGE LOOKS AT BALLET SHOES: EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EN POINTE

December 16, 2020 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Instructing experts in circumstances where they are not necessary, or their evidence is not admissible, is a common theme in litigation.  This issue was considered by Mr David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Rothy’s Inc v…

JUDGE REFUSES TO RECONSIDER CRITICISMS OF EXPERT WITNESS IN A JUDGMENT: EXPERT DUTIES CANNOT BE DELEGATED

JUDGE REFUSES TO RECONSIDER CRITICISMS OF EXPERT WITNESS IN A JUDGMENT: EXPERT DUTIES CANNOT BE DELEGATED

December 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics UK Ltd (t\a MYLAN) [2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat) Mr Justice Marcus Smith made some observations about the role of the expert witness and the importance of their evidence being criticised in…

WHEN A LITIGANT SEEKS TO DEFEND A CLAIM AT ALL COSTS: A HIGHWAY TO HELL: WHY, IN LITIGATION, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES

WHEN A LITIGANT SEEKS TO DEFEND A CLAIM AT ALL COSTS: A HIGHWAY TO HELL: WHY, IN LITIGATION, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES

October 27, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Liability, Members Content, Personal Injury

The judgment of HHJ Mithani QC in Colar v Highways England Company Ltd [2019] EW Misc 17 (CC) has recently arrived on BAILLI.  It provides an illustration of the danger of defending a claim “at all costs”.  The judge was…

CLAIMANT IN LOW-VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CASE NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON EXPERT REPORTS WHEN PROTOCOL NOT COMPLIED WITH: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

October 27, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Mason -v- Laing (Bradford County Court 20th January 2020 Mason v Laing)  HHJ Gosnell held that a claimant that failed to comply with the requirements as to instructing experts prior to a Stage 3 hearing could not rely on…

GUIDANCE ON GIVING REMOTE EVIDENCE: ESSENTIAL READING FROM THE ACADEMY OF EXPERTS

GUIDANCE ON GIVING REMOTE EVIDENCE: ESSENTIAL READING FROM THE ACADEMY OF EXPERTS

September 3, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Coronavirus, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Remote hearings, Useful links

The Academy of Experts have written Guidance on Giving Remote Evidence. Although this is aimed at expert witnesses there is much that anyone involved in litigation can take away from this.   SELECTED EXTRACTS There is much that is useful. …

THE TREATMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: ANOTHER CASE WHERE A JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF A DEFENDANT IS OVERTURNED

THE TREATMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: ANOTHER CASE WHERE A JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF A DEFENDANT IS OVERTURNED

August 30, 2020 · by gexall · in Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

There has been much online discussion about the impact that the decision in Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)  will have in relation to food poisoning cases and more generally. That case related specifically to the treatment of…

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE BECOMES REDUNDANT:  "WE DO NOT HAVE TRIAL BY EXPERT IN THIS COUNTRY: WE HAVE TRIAL BY JUDGE"

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE BECOMES REDUNDANT: “WE DO NOT HAVE TRIAL BY EXPERT IN THIS COUNTRY: WE HAVE TRIAL BY JUDGE”

August 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

There is an interesting judgment on expert evidence at Domeney v Rees & Ors [2020] EWHC 2115 (QB), where Master Davis considered whether accident reconstruction evidence was necessary in relation to a trial.   “We do not have trial by…

CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE IN OCTOBER 1: CHANGES TO THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY EXPERTS

CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE IN OCTOBER 1: CHANGES TO THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY EXPERTS

July 29, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Rule Changes

The 122nd update Practice Direction Amendments come into force on the 1st October 2020. We have already looked at the changes to the rules relating to proceedings for contempt.  Here we look at the change relating to the declaration that…

THE EXPERT THAT DOESN'T GIVE HIS SOURCES (EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA): A PRACTICE DEPRECATED BY THE COURT.

THE EXPERT THAT DOESN’T GIVE HIS SOURCES (EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA): A PRACTICE DEPRECATED BY THE COURT.

June 25, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC) Mrs Justice O’Farrell commented on the practice of one of the experts in the case. Failure to follow the basic guidance given in the…

PROVING THINGS 177: WHEN YOU ARE RELYING ON A MEDICAL EXPERT ON CAUSATION WHO "SHOOTS FROM THE HIP" (IT DOESN'T END WELL)

PROVING THINGS 177: WHEN YOU ARE RELYING ON A MEDICAL EXPERT ON CAUSATION WHO “SHOOTS FROM THE HIP” (IT DOESN’T END WELL)

June 22, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I have written many times about issues arising from expert witnesses.  In clinical negligence cases the role of the expert witness is often paramount.  The claimant, in particular, is almost wholly reliant on expert evidence in relation to causation. It…

LIFE EXPECTANCY IS RARELY A SIMPLE MATTER OF STATISTICS: APPLYING FOR A "VARIATION" OF DIRECTIONS: YOU SHOULD HAVE APPEALED

LIFE EXPECTANCY IS RARELY A SIMPLE MATTER OF STATISTICS: APPLYING FOR A “VARIATION” OF DIRECTIONS: YOU SHOULD HAVE APPEALED

June 16, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In the judgment this morning in Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1543 (QB) Jay J rejected an application by the defendant to rely on expert evidence in relation to life expectancy.    This judgment is important…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PERILS AND THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 29th JUNE 2020

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PERILS AND THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 29th JUNE 2020

June 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Courses, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The problems that experts can cause in cases (often to the side that instructed them) have been extensively catalogued on this blog over the years.  On the 29th June I am giving a webinar on the perils and pitfalls of…

COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS

COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS

May 29, 2020 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The impartiality, or otherwise, of expert witness witnesses was in the news in June 2014.  Since expert evidence has been a constant theme on this blog.  This would seem an appropriate time to revisit a post about the cross-examination of…

COVID REPEATS 36:  DEFENDANT'S EXPERT TOLD TO GET ON HIS BIKE: WHEN A PARTY "WISELY" PLACES NO RELIANCE ON THEIR OWN EXPERT IN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

COVID REPEATS 36: DEFENDANT’S EXPERT TOLD TO GET ON HIS BIKE: WHEN A PARTY “WISELY” PLACES NO RELIANCE ON THEIR OWN EXPERT IN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

May 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Today we are looking again at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in Sinclair -v- Joyner [2015] EWHC Civ 1800 (QB).  Some important observations about the role of the expert and the conduct of the expert instructed by the defendant…

COVID REPEATS 35: EXPERTS: DECLARATIONS OF TRUTH SIGNED RECKLESSLY

COVID REPEATS 35: EXPERTS: DECLARATIONS OF TRUTH SIGNED RECKLESSLY

May 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Problems with experts are very similar across all jurisdictions.   The case of Pabon, R v [2018] EWCA Crim 420 is an illuminating one. A decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division it shows the dangers when an expert does not comply…

COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

May 27, 2020 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Today we are looking back at the case of Hirtenstein -v- Hill Dickinson LLP [2014]  EWHC 2711 (Comm)  contains many interesting lessons for those involved in professional negligence litigation in particular.   Here I just want to concentrate upon two:…

← Previous 1 … 3 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 415: A LOOK AT SOME SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS IN AN ACTION: HOURLY RATES NOT GOING FOR A SONG
  • WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN’T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN “AIR OF UNREALITY” ABOUT THEM
  • COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER
  • CIVIL PROCEDURE, OPAQUE EVIDENCE AND “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”: ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS – TWO EXAMPLES AND THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LITIGANTS…
  • COST BITES 413: GET YOUR FUNDING IN PLACE AND TELL EVERYONE IF THE MUSIC HAS STOPPED: CAT AWARDS COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS DUE TO CONDUCT

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES - BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE "HOSTILE"
HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES...)
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?
CAN THE COURT REFUSE TO ISSUE A CLAIM FORM? CAN THE STAFF LAWFULLY REFER THE ISSUE TO THE JUDGE? AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

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.