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.

Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4
Case Updates

Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

The claimant alleged that the vibrating tools he used while employed by the defendant caused Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. The judge criticised one of the medical experts for looking for answers that supported his strong views on the subject, rather than obtaining a reliable history from the claimant.

DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB)
Case Updates

DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB)

The Claimant brought a claim for compensation in the UK after he was hit by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Mallorca and suffered major injuries, including severe brain injuries. The court found the evidence of several of the experts to be unsatisfactory leading the judge to preface his assessment of the expert witnesses with the observation that “[t]he court is not bound by the conclusions of any expert if it offends logic and common sense. We do not have trial by experts.”

Ms Julia Tosh v Mr Vivek Gupta [2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)
Case Updates

Ms Julia Tosh v Mr Vivek Gupta [2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)

The Claimant brought a claim of clinical negligence after suffering a rare but serious complication (anal stenosis) of an operation performed by the Defendant to surgically remove her haemorrhoids. The judge found that the evidence of the Claimant’s expert was based on limited experience or expertise. There were also several instances where he had not acted in accordance with his duties as an expert.

Rebecca Hepworth v Dr Amanda Coates [2025] EWHC 1907 (KB)
Case Updates

Rebecca Hepworth v Dr Amanda Coates [2025] EWHC 1907 (KB)

The Claimant sought damages for clinical negligence from the Defendant who, she asserted, failed to diagnose red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome at a face to face consultation. The Claimant’s neurorehabilitation expert prepared his reports, engaged in an expert discussion, and signed the Joint Statement, without having seen the Claimant’s witness statement or the reports of other relevant experts.

Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)
Case Updates

Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

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.

 

A fundamentally flawed report
Case Updates

A fundamentally flawed report

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)

An ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion
Case Updates

An ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion

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)

An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to the court
Case Updates

An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to the court

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

 

RSS
1234567