Commentary

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.  

Learning points:

• An expert who strays beyond the limits of their specialist expertise risks the court discounting their evidence.

• The cogency of an expert’s reasoning can affect the weight given to their evidence.  

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login