Case Updates

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use of validity testing in medico-legal assessment. Commentaries from Professor Michael Kopelman (neuropsychiatry), Dr Karen Addy (neuropsychology), Mr Daniel Friedland (neuropsychology) and Dr Kathryn Newns (clinical psychology) were published in the MAEP Expert Witness Healthcare Matters newsletter, coordinated by Professor Rix.

This follow-up brings together the key points emerging across disciplines. It also clarifies several areas regarding the early learning points given in the September case update. The discussion in this article refines those conclusions and reflects current multidisciplinary consensus. 

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on the steps of the lorry on one foot and leaning on the cab, to allegedly lose his balance and suffer injuries. The defendant led an expert witness, Mr H, who presented himself as a Forensic Engineer, and the pursuer an Orthopaedic expert, Mr S. 

The Sherrif concluded that he could not afford Mr H’s conclusions more than minimal weight because of a failure of methodology. Mr H had also expressed his conclusions in terms that gave the appearance that he was the decision-maker and made concessions during cross-examination. The Sherrif found Mr S to be a credible and reliable witness overall but noted that he was not clear when describing his fee arrangements. 

This is an important judgment for obstetricians as it shows in precise detail how the court, relying on not just the experts’ evidence but a critical analysis of the literature on which they relied, decided whether the claimant would have avoided developing HELLP had she been advised to take 75 mg aspirin at 12 (or 14) weeks instead of at 23. Twelve publications were put under the microscope and considered also in the light of research concerning the relative value of aggregate data and individual participant data.

Although the issue in this case was the prevention of HELLP, it may be an important judgment to consider in pre-eclampsia cases.

De Francisci v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (County Court, Basingstoke sitting at Southampton, 9 May 2024) Case No: F16YM828

There have been a number of cases illustrating how fractures are dated. This case illustrates the dating of haemorrhages as well as fractures. The judge’s structure of her judgment enables the reader to see how the analysis of the evidence of the various experts allowed her to find as fact how many incidents of non-accidental injury there were and when they occurred as well as with what force. Although there are no extracts from the experts’ reports or evidence, the judgment illustrates how properly presented expert medical evidence can assist the court in cases of suspected non-accidental injury. The dating of injuries can be of critical importance in cases, as here, where there was more than one potential perpetrator. 

London Borough of Y v M [2025] EWFC 232 (B) 

This is an important case for forensic odontologists because the court had to decide whether bite mark evidence was admissible. It illustrates a number of the matters that are considered when admissibility of an expert’s evidence is in issue. The single learning point is one of general application.

Hedges, R v [2025] EWCA Crim 1051

The detail of this judgment is for the specialists. It illustrates the challenges of proving that an infection has been caused by food poisoning at a hotel, and specifically the relevance of evidence as to other outbreaks in the area, trips out of the hotel, the records of illnesses suffered by other residents and audits of hotel food standards. The two learning points are oft-repeated ones and in this case of particular importance as some of the judge’s decisions depended on which expert’s evidence to accept.  

Rawson v TUI UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 2093 (KB) 

The claimant brought an action against two of its founding shareholders, and companies owned or controlled by them, seeking compensation for harm caused by their alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme. The forensic accounting expert for the first defendant failed to inform the court, until shortly before he gave evidence, that he had ceased to hold a key professional membership.  

JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch)

The claimant asserted that the defendant was required to transfer title in a vessel at the expiry of the bareboat counterparty between them. The judge noted that the claimant’s witness on insurance broking had essentially no experience in the matter for expert evidence and his views appeared to be based on conversations with unidentified others, rather than his own experience of testable research.

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.