Case Updates

Clicking on one of the topics below will display case updates relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify case updates.

Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)
Case Updates

Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)

The judge found that the forensic accounting expert’s approach of forming an opinion as to the value of the Company, then carrying out a detailed calculation and only if it matches his initial opinion accepting it, undermined the credibility and reliability of his opinion as to the value of the Company.

When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness
Case Updates

When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness

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)

An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence
Case Updates

An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence

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

Non-freezing cold injury
Case Updates

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)

One tray short of a baker’s dozen: injury on the production line
Case Updates

One tray short of a baker’s dozen: injury on the production line

This case concerns an important boundary matter that sometimes arises for orthopaedic experts in relation to biomechanics and ergonomics. These are areas of expertise for which the orthopaedic surgeon’s ‘working knowledge’ may be sufficient, thereby avoiding the time and expense of instructing a further expert just as in cases where knowledge and experience of orthopaedics in general is sufficient and it is not necessary to instruct an orthopaedic sub-specialist.

Swierzko v Mathiesons Bakery Ltd [2024] SC EDIN 43

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve?
Case Updates

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve?

The judge noted that the expert readily accepted that integral to his reasoning was that he did not believe the claimant as to the symptoms he had suffered and, probably, teh claimant's account of the incident. In the judge's view, it is entirely outside the remit of an expert to decide which witnesses of fact he believes or disbelieves.

Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB) 

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)
Case Updates

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding that the primary duty of an expert witness is not to say anything that may damage the instructing party’s case if it can be avoided.

Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB)
Case Updates

Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB)

The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.

Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC)
Case Updates

Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC)

The judge found that it was without justification and entirely unecessary for an expert to question the opposing expert's professionalism and motives in selecting evidence, noting that this approach was unhelpful for the tribunal. 

RSS
1345678910Last