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.

In this case of suspected non-accidental injuries to an infant, only one of the experts was required to give evidence. This was Professor Fleming and as the judge found that he gave his evidence in his characteristically understated and calm fashion and was precise, knowledgeable and reasonable in his evidence, it is set out here in full as a model.

The case also illustrates how the expertise of clinical geneticists, endocrinologists, haematologists, neonatologists, paediatricians and radiologists can all be necessary where non-accidental injury of a child is the issue.

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.”

This is an important case for three reasons.

First, it found that a general practitioner, giving evidence about the depressive disorder diagnosed in primary care, was giving expert evidence. Second, it illustrates the difficulties for courts and tribunals arising from the looseness with which some medical professionals, and most laypeople, use such terms as "depression" ("clinical" or otherwise), "anxiety" and "stress" and to which list can be added, also for the benefit of surgeons, “shock”. Third, it is a good illustration of the approach likely to be taken in an Employment Tribunal disability case.

J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] UKEAT 0263 09 1506

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.

In this case the issue was the extent or degree of the deterioration, its real world impact in terms of effect on daily life and ability to cope and the mitigating effects of help and treatment. 

Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2024000275 

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.

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

The judge found that an expert on risk assessment adopted an overly strict and slightly unrealistic approach in assessing the adequacy of a risk assessment conducted by a cycling club.

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.