The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth. There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just jointly appointed experts in the Family Court.

Re M (A Child) (Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas) [2024] EWFC 209 (B)

This is an important case because it corrects a misunderstanding about the test for capacity. There has been an established view that the Mental Capacity Act contains a ‘belief’ requirement. That is wrong.

Hemachandran v Thirumalesh [2024] EWCA Civ 896

The experts in this case appear to have set out a joint statement in the form of a Scott schedule. Unfortunately one of the experts used his column to set out lengthy texts and seemingly seeking to use the statement as a Trojan horse by which to introduce evidence that the court has excluded.

Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd & Anor v Ruhan & Anor [2024] EWHC 1263 (Comm) 

This case concerns three important issues in personal injury litigation in Northern Ireland: the extent of the plaintiff’s medical records to which an expert can have access; what the expert can ask about how the injury was sustained; and whether a plaintiff can refuse to be assessed by a particular expert.   

This Irish case is primarily of interest to psychologists and others concerned about courts’ reliance on evidence from psychologists who are not registered with an appropriate regulator and not clinically trained. The points of general application concern the high threshold to be reached in order to admit as expert evidence the evidence that comes from a body of knowledge that is not widely recognised. 

The court considered that there was some substance to the criticisms of an accident and emergency expert for not dealing with matters in his primary report which he then agreed in the joint report with the opposing expert (who had included the issues in his primary report). These were however criticisms for failing to deal with points, rather than criticisms of the opinions he actually expressed in his primary report.

This is an important judgment that sets out the position taken by the courts as to the presence of another person during an expert assessment.

Belkovic v DSG International Plc [2014] NIQB 25

So many of the judgments summarised in this compendium are ones in which experts are criticised and there are lessons to be learned. What this judgment makes clear is that the first instance judge was wrong to have criticised Dr Matthews ("a very experienced child psychologist"). Yes, experts sometimes get it wrong and judicial criticism is justified. But judges can also get it wrong, in this case in their criticism of an expert.  

PP v JP & Ors [2024] EWHC 1697 (Fam)

In this appeal of an asylum decision, the court was unable to discern sustainable and tolerably clear reasons as to why the judge rejected the expertise of the expert witness and his expert opinion provided in his report.

The claimants, who claimed to have suffered personal injury caused by contaminants in a housing development, relied on the evidence of Professor T. The court found that Professor T did not provide any medically reasoned justification which would allow the court to make findings supporting his conclusions and did not explain in detail how he was able to reach his view on causation. The detail of this judgment is important for toxicology experts. It may be useful for medical experts as an example of the courts’ approach to causation.

Pelosi v Lanarkshire Housing Association Ltd [2024] ScotCS CSOH 56