Although this is a case of alleged dental negligence and can be usefully read in full not only by dental experts, but by dentists, oral surgeons and students of dentistry, it is also of some general significance not just for experts who provide evidence in Scotland, for whom the exposition of Scots negligence law is invaluable and civil procedure significantly different, but for lessons about expert evidence in clinical negligence cases generally.

Gallagher v Clement (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 035

Apart from the oft-made point about the importance for experts of the chronology, especially in cases where the issue is causation or clinical negligence, there is nothing in this case for healthcare experts in general. It is an importance case for ENT experts because several similar claims are due to be heard over the next months. 

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational decision" to end his life can be construed as satisfying Turner proposition 4. It makes clear that Turner proposition (4) is not directed at the general background or lead-up to a suicide attempt but is focused on the moment in time when suicide is attempted.

Hebda v District Court in Krakow, Poland [2025] EWHC 860 (Admin)

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in general as well as orthopaedic experts. It sets out the law on consent as established in not only Montgomery but also in McCullough. It touches on orthopaedic experts giving evidence in cases outside their own subspecialty.

Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)

This case is a useful reminder about the meaning of disability in the Equality Act and the matters that expert evidence must address. 

Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION) [2025] EAT 82) 

For paediatricians this is an example of how not to conduct an expert paediatric assessment and present the results to the court. It also illustrates some basic points applicable to all experts.

M v F [2025] EWFC 150 (B)

Few reported cases assist as to expert evidence in cases of harassment and on the issue of injury to feelings as distinct from psychiatric injury. This summary should be read for this reason. It illustrates how the expert should respond to less than neutral instructions. It illustrates how cardiological evidence was analysed in order for the court to conclude that the defendant’s course of conduct had caused a myocardial infarction. It also reveals the charitable aspect of pro bono legal practice.   

Wei v Long [2025] EWHC 912 (KB)

This case is of obvious importance to experts authorised by the Family Court to be instructed in public law proceedings but it has implications for all experts whose fees are to be paid by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA).

K, Re & Re S (Legal Aid: Experts' Fees) [2025] EWFC 100 

In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports, including addenda and other admissible communications. The fundamental disagreement was the diagnosis: PTSD or adjustment disorder. It appears that four of the reports by the defendant’s expert were in rebuttal of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert. This summary does not reflect the considerable extent to which the court had to analyse the evidence as to diagnosis. In the court’s judgment diagnosis hardly mattered. The judge said that more important, in his view, was the impact that the condition had on the plaintiff’s everyday functioning and lifestyle. Then when awarding damages, he said that the psychiatric damage suffered by the plaintiff attributable to the accident could be described as moderately severe whether that be under a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychiatric damage generally. 

There was no dispute about the expert evidence in this case but it is of interest for several reasons. First, it sets out in some detail the evidence of experts in educational psychology and occupational therapy and it therefore provides examples for those healthcare specialties of how to make their bodies of knowledge understandable to a tribunal. Second, it illustrates the role of experts when their evidence is admitted by a specialist tribunal. Third, it sets out the test of which experts need to be aware in cases of alleged disability discrimination arising from a school’s treatment of a pupil with behavioural difficulties. Fourth, although psychiatrists and psychologists are often advised to keep the unconscious out of the witness box, for reasons to do with proof, it is encouraging to find a tribunal accepting such evidence.

B v The Proprietor of St Dominic's Grammar School [2025] UKUT 48 (AAC)