13 February Case Updates Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch) 13. Changing your opinion, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Forensic Accounting 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.
21 January Case Updates Rebecca Lochrie v Matthew Edwards Judgment G48YJ355 14. Giving Oral Evidence, Laser Eye Surgery, LASIK The Claimant alleged that the Defendant acted negligently in obtaining her consent for laser eye surgery including failing to adequately investigate her ophthalmic condition prior to the surgery.
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)
5 December Case Updates One tray short of a baker’s dozen: injury on the production line Orthopaedics, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, biomechanics 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
21 November Case Updates Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? Range of Opinion, Cross-examination, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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)
29 October Case Updates Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 07. Working with Instructing Parties, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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.
22 October Case Updates Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) 05. Rules and Regulations, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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.
9 October Case Updates Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC) 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, Surveyors, Valuation 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.