28 May Case Updates Rough or inappropriate handling of an infant CMV infection, bone biochemistry As in many family cases, the issue here was the cause of the child’s injuries. It includes a distinction to be made between handling in hospital, such as holding of wrists for blood to be drawn, application of masks to assist breathing and holding of head still, to what would be expected in a normal domestic setting. It illustrates how a CMV infection complicated the court’s analysis of the evidence. N, In the Matter Of [2024] EWFC 378
23 May Case Updates Unresponsive episodes in a child and the role of chloral hydrate 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, chloral hydrate, epilepsy, unresponsive episodes For the specialists this case illustrates how the court investigates case of perplexing presentations in children and the importance of considering as many as possible explanations. This was a case where the medical history was complex and where the material events occurred over a 5 months’ admission, so the volume of medical records must have been immense. The court was obviously greatly assisted by the expert factual evidence of one of the child’s consultants, specifically his summary of the child’s medical conditions and his table of medication. The weakness of one of the experts was that he had not sufficiently familiarised himself with the contents of the medical records and was not as familiar as with the chronology of the case as he might have been if he had created a chronology in his own investigation of the case. A Local Authority v Mother [2024] EWHC 3511 (Fam)
22 May News Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law proceedings concerning children Covert recording, Family Justice Council The Family Justice Council (FJC) has published guidance for professionals and litigants who represent themselves on the use of covert recordings in family law proceedings. The guidance follows an increased use of covert recordings in family law proceedings and the need for clear guidance, and the protection and privacy of those subject to the recording.
21 May News Access to public domain documents pilot 06. Rules and Regulations, Access to Court Documents, Transparency and Open Justice Board, CPRC, Open Justice The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has approved in principle a 2-year pilot on “access to public domain documents” in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Court and the Financial List effective from 1 October 2025.
20 May News How to Reduce the Re-traumatisation of Claimants in Medico-Legal Litigation Claims Medico-legal, psychological trauma The EWI has been provided with a copy of a recently written paper setting out the risk of re-traumatising claimants in medico-legal litigation and proposing reforms to reduce this risk. We support the principles set out in the paper and the aims and objectives of the authors, and consider the paper is a good starting point for a broader discussion among the medio-legal community of the risk of worsening the psychological trauma and the need to work within a trauma informed approach. We have set out in this article some issues we think could benefit from the input of the wider community, but welcome views on other issues.
19 May Day in the life A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness Digital Forensics, 11. Report Writing, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 15. Giving Oral Evidence Ryan Shields is a digital forensics expert who has worked in the police and private sector. Here, he explains why he is passionate about using his expertise as an Expert Witness and shares his advice for others considering joining the Expert world.
19 May Podcast Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any proceeding, so join us as we discuss how to do them well and avoid the common pitfalls, look at the EWI's recently refreshed guidance, and hear top tips from Beth Rigby and Jessica Thurston, who present the EWI webinar on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. And as usual, we begin with our segment on 'What's going on at EWI?' and end with 'Newsreel', a quick fire discussion of the key things you need to know this month.
16 May Case Updates Martin Craig Nicholas & Ors v Barnes Davison Thomas & Anor [2025] EWHC 752 (Ch) 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 07. Receiving Instructions, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints The claimants, who carried on a business breeding falcons, made allegations of harassment and nuisance against their neighbour, who operated a small farm neighbouring their property. While the judge accepted some of the claimants’ criticisms of one of the defendants’ experts, he also noted that the claimants could not complain about the consequences of their putting in new evidence that was not in accordance with the timetable laid down at the CCMC.
14 May Case Updates Aerotoxic syndrome Neurology, Neuropsychology, Scotland, Toxicology, Aviation Medicine, aerotoxic syndrome Personal injury claims are being brought by approximately 220 pilots and cabin crew at the High Court in London on the grounds of aerotoxic syndrome (ATS). This group of claimants includes 51 claims which were issued by Thompsons in March 2019 involving pilots and cabin crew working for EasyJet, British Airways, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic. These two claims are not included in these ongoing English collective proceedings. These were claims by two pilots who lost the chance of bringing successful claims as a result of the admitted negligence of a Scottish law practice. Gough v Cannons Law Practice; Montague-Trenchard v Cannons Law Practice (Court of Session) [2025] CSOH 28
8 May Case Updates Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and litigation capacity litigation capacity, 11. Report Writing, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits In short, the case illustrates a very common situation in which, on the basis of what is often an appropriately diagnosed psychological condition or mental disorder, it is asserted that a litigant is not capable of participating in legal proceedings. In criminal cases, in relation to the accused, the issue is usually fitness to plead and stand trial. In civil proceedings the issue is litigation capacity. As is often the case, the court’s decision is influenced by how the litigant has functioned in previous cases or earlier in the instant proceedings. F v W [2024] IEHC 631