31 January Case Updates JXX v Scott Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) 05. Rules and Regulations, 02. Setting Fees and Getting Paid, Expert Fees, Medical Reporting Organisations In considering whether the claimant should be required to provide a breakdown of expert and medical agency fees, the judge decided to offer the claimant the option of either providing the breakdown of expert and medical reporting organisation fees, to enable an assessment of work of both the expert and the MRO, or not providing that information and having the expert fees assessed on the hypothetical basis that there was no medical reporting organisation involved.
28 January Case Updates Consent – post-Montgomery Clinical negligence, Dentistry, Consent, 05. Rules and Regulations Although this is a dental/maxillofacial negligence case, it is of importance for all healthcare experts instructed in cases where consent may be an issue. It highlights points about which experts should enquire when there may be an issue as to consent to a surgical or other procedure. In this case it was found that the consent process was deficient in a number of respects. It is also a case which illustrates how expert evidence can separately assist the court on the issues of breach of duty, causation, condition and prognosis. Winterbotham v Shahrak (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2633 (KB)
23 January Case Updates A demonstrably incapable and incompetent witness who was not fit to have been put forward as an expert witness Hot-tubbing, Chartered Building Surveyor, 05. Rules and Regulations, Northern Ireland, concurrent expert evidence, The Ikarian Reefer For surveyor experts, this case illustrates some very basic errors and it may therefore also be a useful case for expert surveyor witness training. McBride v McGuigan & Anor [2024] NIMaster 20
16 January Case Updates NMC Health PLC v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 3021 (Comm) CPR, 05. Rules and Regulations, Adjournment The defendant made an application for adjournment on the proposition that it could not be ready for trial because its experts required additional time to complete their reports. However, it was unable to demonstrate that it would be unfair to proceed with the existing trial.
14 January Case Updates Justice for people with a hearing impairment Capacity, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 07. Working with Instructing Parties, Hearing impairment A psychiatrist whose evidence had often been admitted in capacity cases was assisted in this case of a hearing-impaired person by an interpreter who had British Sign Language (BSL) Level 1 training. Her assessment was subsequently criticised as she conducted the assessment without ‘suitable specialist learning support’. For psychiatrists and psychologists, the case illustrates the importance, in the case of some hearing-impaired subjects, of being assisted, or of the assessment being carried out, by a psychologist or psychiatrist who has experience of the assessment and treatment of hearing-disabled people. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ (Rev1) [2024] EWCOP 72 (T3)
7 January Case Updates Alan Prescott-Brann v Chelsea and Westminster’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2024] EWHC 3314 (KB) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion The Appellant was given permission to change neurology experts after the judge found that the application was not so late as to be prejudicial to the Respondents, and that the Appellant was not engaging in expert shopping.
19 December Case Updates When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness Psychology, Psychiatry, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance. Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)
13 December Case Updates An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Bermuda, DNA Evidence, Privy Council In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of errors in the collection, examination and interpretation of the DNA expert evidence used in the trial. Julian Washington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda) [2024] UKPC 34
10 December Case Updates Non-freezing cold injury 05. Rules and Regulations, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, Non freezing cold injury This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The case illustrates the challenges for experts when the clinical condition in issue is rarely encountered (or at least rarely recognised) in normal NHS practice. The detail of this judgment may be of interest only to neurologists and vascular surgeons but makes useful reading for any expert instructed in a case where non-freezing cold injury is in issue. Fraser v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 2977 (KB)
29 November Case Updates Expert appoints herself as social worker, psychologist, therapist and judge Independence, Unregulated Experts, 05. Rules and Regulations, 15. Criticism and Complaints At a time when psychologists in particular are concerned about psychological evidence being given by psychologists who are unregulated, this case illustrates the risks when an ‘independent’ social worker gives psychological evidence. The learning points are of general application. The specifics of the case are for psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers. Coventry City Council v XX [2024] EWFC 249 (B)