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)

Acting as a Single Joint Expert can be more challenging than being a party appointed expert. The EWI has resources to support you, but why not start by reading our ten tips.

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) 

The judge noted that that the manner in which two Expert Witnesses in Chartered Surveying gave their evidence was more advocacy than opinion, with one expert’s report reading more like a skeleton argument.

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.   

In the circumstances of the case, including the absence of a timely challenge to lack of form, the judge gave due weight to an expert report and the answers to questions without subtraction for lack of compliance with CPR 35 and rule 3 of the Practice Directions.

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.

The claimants mounted an attack in cross-examination on the expertise and competence of an expert in Old Age Psychiatry.