7 August Case Updates Benjamin Hetherington (by his father and litigation friend Gary Hetherington) v Raymond Fell & Anor [2025] EWHC 1487 (KB) 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints The judge found that an expert on risk assessment adopted an overly strict and slightly unrealistic approach in assessing the adequacy of a risk assessment conducted by a cycling Club.
5 August Case Updates Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB) 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Tinnitus, Acoustic Trauma Apart from the oft-made point about the importance for experts of the chronology, especially in cases where the issue is causation or clinical negligence, there is nothing in this case for healthcare experts in general. It is an importance case for ENT experts because several similar claims are due to be heard over the next months.
31 July Case Updates Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB) 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the snowmobile guides’ evidence, but positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour.
29 July Case Updates Extradition and suicide risk Psychology, Extradition, Suicide risk, Psychiatry, Turner proposition 4 This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational decision" to end his life can be construed as satisfying Turner proposition 4. It makes clear that Turner proposition (4) is not directed at the general background or lead-up to a suicide attempt but is focused on the moment in time when suicide is attempted. Hebda v District Court in Krakow, Poland [2025] EWHC 860 (Admin)
24 July Case Updates A fundamentally flawed report 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 16. Criticism and Complaints The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist would need to be instructed after the expert directly challenged the findings of the Court and the soundness of the evidence on which those findings were based. The Court denied the expert’s subsequent request for anonymity. Liverpool City Council v A & Ors [2025] EWHC 1474 (Fam)
22 July Case Updates Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk Legal test, Consent to treatment, Orthopaedics, 11. Report Writing, 12. Responding to questions Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in general as well as orthopaedic experts. It sets out the law on consent as established in not only Montgomery but also in McCullough. It touches on orthopaedic experts giving evidence in cases outside their own subspecialty. Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)
17 July Case Updates Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) Artificial Intelligence, AI The barrister for the Claimant was unable to explain to the court's satisfaction why she had cited several non-existent cases in pleadings. The case was referred to the High Court for its consideration which commented on the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings.
15 July Case Updates ADHD, ASD and disability Autistic spectrum disorder, Psychology, Psychiatry, Equality Act 2010 This case is a useful reminder about the meaning of disability in the Equality Act and the matters that expert evidence must address. Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION) [2025] EAT 82)