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…
