EXPERT EVIDENCE: KNOWING WHERE IT CAN ALL GO WRONG – AND AVOIDING PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY OCCUR:WEBINAR ON EXPERTS AND FOR EXPERTS: 21st MARCH 2022
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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”
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
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.
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:…
COVID REPEATS 32: EXPERTS: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES: THE EXPERT THAT DIDN’T BOUGH DOWN TO THE RULES…
This week, providing there are no major developments that draw us elsewhere, the repeats are going to be about cases relating to experts. Firstly we go back to 2014 the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Stagecoach Great Western Trains -v- Hind…
EXPERTS NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES: DEPLETES YOUR ENERGY: A HIGH COURT CASE
The “Covid Repeats” section of this blog next week will review cases relating to experts. Problems with experts remain a key issue in litigation. Primarily caused by the expert’s failure to follow the basic rules and court orders. Examples can…
DIVISIONAL COURT FINDS THAT EXPERT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ERASED FROM MEDICAL REGISTER: “NEW” EVIDENCE ADMITTED
The judgment of the Divisional Court today in General Medical Council & Ors v Zafar [2020] EWHC 846 (Admin) provides an interesting sequel to the earlier judgments in relation to contempt of court by a doctor who had been seriously…
MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS: MEDCO ALLOW REMOTE EXAMINATIONS
Last week Medco issued a ban on remote video medical examinations. Today it has changed its mind, in an announcement available here. THE ANNOUNCEMENT REMOTE EXAMINATIONS With immediate effect and until further notice the ban on remote video medical…
EXPERT WITNESSES: HANDING THE JUDGE AN UNSORTED MEDLEY OF DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO DOWN TOO WELL
There was one aspect of the evidence mentioned in the judgment Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 379 (QB) Mrs Justice Farbey that was somewhat unusual. An expert handed the judge a “file of documents” to…
CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL EXPERT ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS: EXPERTS PLEASE NOTE (EXPERTS’ INSURERS NOTE CAREFULLY)
In Thimmaya -v- Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust (30th January 2020, Manchester County Court) HHJ Claire Evans ordered that a medical expert pay a significant part of the defendant’s costs when she found that the expert had failed in his duties…
STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 9: SHARING THE “PAIN”
Most of the burden of complying with time periods and court orders lies with the solicitor. However a solicitor’s life can be made easier by making sure that all those concerned with the litigation process know of the deadlines involved…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 77: THE COURT MUST KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4(2)
CPR 35.4(2) is often overlooked. This rule imposes a duty on a party applying for permission to rely on expert evidence to inform the court how much the expert is likely to cost. This is often clear at the costs…
CIVIL LITIGATION CASE OF THE YEAR: BATES -v- THE POST OFFICE: LITIGATING IN THE FACE OF “INSTITUTIONAL PARANOIA”
There was never any doubt in my mind as to the civil litigation case of the year – Bates -v- The Post Office. All civil litigation is here, witness and expert evidence, allegations of bias, disclosure and much more. One…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 72: THE EXPERT’S DUTY TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR VIEWS (A MANDATORY OBLIGATION MORE HONOURED IN THE BREACH…)
The recent post on the decision in Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) highlights a common omission from many expert reports. The expert’s duty to consider whether there is a range of opinion and to give…
EXPERTS, IMPARTIALITY AND CELEBRITY BEDSPREADS: BE CAREFUL OF THE WAY YOU INSTRUCT EXPERTS AND YOU MAY SLEEP TIGHTLY (YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY)
In Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) HHJ Melissa Clarke considered, and was critical of, the way in which an expert was instructed. The difficulty was that the appointed expert moved from “hired gun” hired…
PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN PERMISSION OF THE COURT, AND DIRECTIONS, BEFORE INSTRUCTING EXPERTS
In Gulf International Bank BSC v Aldwood [2019] EWHC 1666 (QB) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) made some observations about using expert evidence on foreign law without the court’s permission. THE CASE The judge was…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD…
One, unusual, aspect of the decision in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) is that the experts had sought directions from the court. This brings attention to the (apparently) little used provisions of CPR 35.14. Experts have the…
WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT’S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT’S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE
An earlier post dealt with the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) and the claimant’s decision to record her appointments with the defendant’s medical experts. The issue of what, precisely, was said to an expert can…
CLAIMANT’S QUESTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS DISALLOWED: PART 35 HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR PROPORTIONALITY: EXPERTS SEEK HELP
There is another aspect of the judgment of Master Davison in In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) that is of considerable interest. The Master disallowed a series of lengthy questions to the experts. The Master pointed out…
COURT ADMITS CLAIMANT’S TAPES OF CONSULTATIONS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT
In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) Master Davison allowed the claimant to produce as evidence the tapes they had recorded of their consultations with the defendant’s medical experts. This decision raises some interesting issues. (The case…
You must be logged in to post a comment.