Case Updates

There was no dispute about the expert evidence in this case but it is of interest for several reasons. First, it sets out in some detail the evidence of experts in educational psychology and occupational therapy and it therefore provides examples for those healthcare specialties of how to make their bodies of knowledge understandable to a tribunal. Second, it illustrates the role of experts when their evidence is admitted by a specialist tribunal. Third, it sets out the test of which experts need to be aware in cases of alleged disability discrimination arising from a school’s treatment of a pupil with behavioural difficulties. Fourth, although psychiatrists and psychologists are often advised to keep the unconscious out of the witness box, for reasons to do with proof, it is encouraging to find a tribunal accepting such evidence.

B v The Proprietor of St Dominic's Grammar School [2025] UKUT 48 (AAC) 

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners alleging that they failed to act on a potential diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease. The judge found that one of the GP experts had trespassed on the judicial function to determine the facts and had sought to advocate on behalf of the second defendant.

For the specialists this case illustrates how the court investigates case of perplexing presentations in children and the importance of considering as many as possible explanations. This was a case where the medical history was complex and where the material events occurred over a 5 months’ admission, so the volume of medical records must have been immense. The court was obviously greatly assisted by the expert factual evidence of one of the child’s consultants, specifically his summary of the child’s medical conditions and his table of medication. The weakness of one of the experts was that he had not sufficiently familiarised himself with the contents of the medical records and was not as familiar as with the chronology of the case as he might have been if he had created a chronology in his own investigation of the case.   

A Local Authority v Mother [2024] EWHC 3511 (Fam)

The claimants, who carried on a business breeding falcons, made allegations of harassment and nuisance against their neighbour, who operated a small farm neighbouring their property. While the judge accepted some of the claimants’ criticisms of one of the defendants’ experts, he also noted that the claimants could not complain about the consequences of their putting in new evidence that was not in accordance with the timetable laid down at the CCMC.

In short, the case illustrates a very common situation in which, on the basis of what is often an appropriately diagnosed psychological condition or mental disorder, it is asserted that a litigant is not capable of participating in legal proceedings. In criminal cases, in relation to the accused, the issue is usually fitness to plead and stand trial. In civil proceedings the issue is litigation capacity. As is often the case, the court’s decision is influenced by how the litigant has functioned in previous cases or earlier in the instant proceedings.

F v W [2024] IEHC 631

The Claimant claimed he had suffered a substantial loss due to the destruction of two consignments of poppy heads by the Defendants. The parties were given permission to rely on the written evidence of expert accountants. The Claimant made an application to the Court for the accountancy expert witnesses to give oral evidence at the trial and an application to adduce evidence prepared by his son.

This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn.   

The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved.  The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated.  This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.

Experts are advised, if possible, to avoid expressing opinions on the basis of possibility. The usually applicable stand of proof is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities or more probable than not. The criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (and not beyond all reasonable [sic] doubt as it is sometimes misquoted). In this case it was submitted that the expert used the terms "possibility", "high possibility" and "extremely high possibility" interchangeably and that this was insufficient to satisfy the criminal standard of proof. However, when the court analysed the expert’s report as a whole, it was clear that a tribunal of fact could safely conclude that the criminal standard of proof was satisfied.

Government of Japan v Chappell [2025] EWHC 166 

The detail of this case is of relevance to dental experts and attention is drawn to the clarity and particularity with which Professor Harding set out the instances of treatment of the Claimant which was below the standard she could reasonably have expected and then identified the consequences thereof. There is a gastroenterological and pharmacological dimension to the case because it was alleged, and found, that the pain resulting from the negligent dental treatment necessitated treatment with NAISDs which caused ischaemic colitis. 

Bailey v Bijlani [2025] EWHC 175 (KB)

The detail of this judgment is for experts who conduct capacity assessments. Two points arise of more general interest.

First, the expert, who had been involved in the case for six years, changed her opinion. In the language of the court it was a 180^o degree change. The court thought that this called for a greater discussion in the analysis section of the report. This seems to have been that section of the report for which experts use the heading ‘Facts and assumed facts’ or ‘Factual analysis’. Second, the expert suggested that the issues, or some of the issues, in the case could be resolved by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court. But there had been no application for the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, it was not referred to in the letter of instruction, and it might not – as a matter of law – have been available. This is a good example of the advice to experts to leave the law to the lawyers.  

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v LS [2025] EWCOP 10 (T3)