EXPERT WATCH II: ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK THE EVIDENCE IN
There are some examples of ingenious attempts to introduce expert evidence into cases. Mr Justice Arnold commented on this in his judgment in Teva UK Ltd -v- Gilead Sciences Inc [2017] EWHC 13 (Pat). A “factual” report from an expert is…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY
This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year. As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS…
PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK
A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages. This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker…
PROVING THINGS 39: YOU CAN SPEND £10 MILLION IN COSTS AND STILL NOT PROVE YOUR CASE: DAMAGES CLAIM WAS A "NOTIONAL DESKTOP EXERCISE"
It is unusual to look at the substantive judgment in a case after examining the decision on costs. We have already looked at the cost judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496. However the substantive…
THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)
The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for…
IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…
There have been many occasions on this blog where I have commented on expert evidence. The links below show many cases where experts have caused major problems (usually for the party instructing them). There are numerous reports of cases where…
THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: BEWARE YE THE PARTISAN EXPERT: "UNBALANCED AND HIGHLY MISLEADING"
Some types of litigation are heavily reliant upon expert evidence. Clinical negligence cases are often determined by the judge’s assessment of the experts involved. It is disturbing to see the matters raised in judgment today of His Honour Peter Hughes…
PROVING THINGS 36: CREDIBILITY & CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS: WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
One of my colleagues tweeted that the judgment in Harris -v-Miller [2016] EWHC 2438 (QB) was “short on the law and long on the facts”. This is a correct assessment. The case shows just how important the facts are in…
WHAT IS MEANT BY AN "INDEPENDENT" EXPERT? CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK III
In Hopkinson -v- Hickton [2016] EWCA Civ 1057 the Court of Appeal considered what was meant by an “independent” expert. KEY POINTS The fact that a valuer, appointed to value a property by the parties under the terms of a…
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAWYER AND EXPERT: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK II
We have already looked at the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21 in relation to costs budgeting. Here I want to isolate one aspect of that budgeting exercise – in relation to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK 1
In Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca -v- Xstrate Limited [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett refused an application to rely on an expert witness. The case was unusual, however the principles are universal. The questions were whether there was an…
ANOTHER EXPERT WITNESS GOES AWRY: PATENTLY A PROBLEM
It is easy for the non-technical reader to pass over judgments relating to patents. These often involve highly technical issues. However there is one aspect of the judgment in Thoratec Europe Limited -v- AIS GMBH Aachen Innovative Solutions [2016] EWHC…
WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE: A MASTERLY EXPOSITION
The judgment of Master Matthews in Darby Properties Ltd -v- Lloyds Bank Plc [2016] 2494 (Ch) contains an important consideration of the rules relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. In particular when is expert evidence “necessary”? “… although I…
JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF WHICH EXPERT IS PREFERRED
There is a short passage in the judgment in Barclays Bank PLC -v- Christie Owen & Davies Limited [2016] EWHC 2351 (Ch) which considers the appropriate approach of the court when considering expert evidence. “To consider simply whether to prefer…
CHALLENGING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE BY THE USE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PREQUEL
Last month I wrote about the decision of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1962 (QB). One of the many issues the judge considered in that case was the admissibility of expert evidence to…
THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN LAWYERS & EXPERTS: A DIFFICULT ISSUE
In a week where there is a report of an application being made for a doctor to be committed for contempt* it is prudent to consider that difficult issue of the relationship between the lawyers in a case and the…
EXPERT REPORTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: PART 35 APPLIES
In the judgment today in Khaled -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 857 (Admin) Mr Justice Garnham considered Part 35 of the CPR and the admissibility of expert reports in proceedings in the Administrative Court. “The…
THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN LITIGATION: SUPREME COURT GUIDANCE
In Kennedy -v- Cordia Services LLP [2016] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court made some telling observations relating to expert evidence. This was in the context of a Scottish case, however the observations are of general importance. THE CASE The Supreme Court…
IS AN EXPERT REALLY NECESSARY? TWO RECENT CASES
The determination of the courts to restrict the use of expert evidence can be seen by the fact that the text of CPR 35.1 appears under the heading “duty to restrict expert evidence”. The rule itself states “Expert evidence shall be…
CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE DELAY WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: WEARN -v- HNH CONSIDERED
In Wearn -v- HNH International Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 3542 (Ch) Mr Justice Barling struck out a claim for delay, holding that the claimant’s delay amounted to an abuse of process. There are also a few interesting observations about the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.