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)
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.
1 July Case Updates An ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion Testamentary capacity The defendants denied the validity of a will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity. The judge found that the conclusion of the jointly instructed expert as to testamentary capacity was inadequately reasoned and evidenced. Carolyne Mary Parfitt v Victoria Jane Jones & Anor [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch)
25 June Case Updates An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to the court 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 12. Responding to questions, 16. Criticism and Complaints The court noted that the jointly instructed expert demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both CPR 35 and the duties owed to the court by an expert in allowing someone else in this firm to answer CPR 35 questions on his behalf. His report was also entirely equivocal on the key issues and therefore offered little or no assistance to the court. Kate Rodgers v Laural Brookes [2025] EWCC 31
12 June Case Updates Expert suggests Google would probably give the court a better answer than him 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 17. Maintaining your professional edge, Structural Engineering The claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution. MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)
4 June Case Updates Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB) 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, GP Expert Witnesss, pelvic inflammatory disease 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.
16 May Case Updates Martin Craig Nicholas & Ors v Barnes Davison Thomas & Anor [2025] EWHC 752 (Ch) 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 07. Receiving Instructions, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints 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.
6 May Case Updates Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor Revenue & Anor 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence 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.
8 April Case Updates Nothing short of a demolition of the expert's evidence Paediatrics, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Radiology The expert paediatrician in this case misidentified and confused twins when reading the primary medical disclose. This fundamental error was of seminal importance in this case because the twins had very different birth and post-birth experiences, with one being much weaker and more vulnerable than the other. The judge noted that the cross-examination of the expert was nothing short of a demolition of the expert’s evidence. LB Croydon v D (critical scrutiny of the paedeatric overview)
2 April Case Updates Ivan Norman v N & CJ Horton Property (a firm) [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) 06. Rules and Regulations, Money Laundering The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if admissible, was neither necessary nor of assistance to the court.