11 October Case Updates Litigation capacity Psychiatry, litigation capacity, 10. Report Writing, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Jersey Although accepting the medical expert's conclusion on the First Defendant's capacity to appear in court, the Bailiff noted that any further application for an adjournment on health grounds would require a much more significant explanation of the First Defendant's medical history, and precise problems and prognosis, to be provided well in advance. Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi and Ors [2024] JRC 086
9 October Case Updates Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Surveyors, Valuation The judge found that it was without justification and entirely unecessary for an expert to question the opposing expert's professionalism and motives in selecting evidence, noting that this approach was unhelpful for the tribunal.
3 October Case Updates Fact finding by experts Facts, Ireland, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements The court could see no basis on which the plaintiffs could seek to rely on any agreement reached between the experts as to the underlying facts. Nolan v Dildar Ltd (Approved) [2024] IEHC 4
27 September Case Updates Pedestrian-vehicle impact speed and injury severity Head injury criteria scores, Impact speed, Pedestrian-vehicle collision For accident reconstruction, emergency medicine and neurosurgery experts, this case illustrates the interdependence of accident reconstruction and medical evidence and the need for the medical experts to have regard to the accident reconstruction evidence. Colizzi v Coulson [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)
25 September Case Updates Good practice points in asylum and immigration psychiatric reports Credibility, Expert Report, Judicial critism, Expert anonymity, Exaggeration, Feigning, Istanbul Protocol, Remote Assessment The report of an expert in psychiatry was undermined by his acceptance of the appellent's account which, unbeknown to him, a previous tribunal had found to lack credibility. The court also attached less weight to the expert's assessment than it did to a hospital letter because the assessment had been conducted remotely. Chahal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2024001451
17 September Case Updates Cardiotocograph – normal or abnormal Obstetrics, Midwifery, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints This case is primarily of interest to obstetricians, illustrating the court’s approach to the disputed interpretation of cardiotocographic evidence. There were no midwifery issues as such, but it may be of some interest to midwifery experts. The general learning points speak for themselves without reading the summary. Woods v Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 1432 (KB)
12 September Case Updates Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis Non-accidental injury, 08. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Known unknowns, Metaphyseal corner fractures, Protein pump inhibitors 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)
10 September Case Updates The MCA’s belief requirement is wrong in law Mental Capacity Act 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
5 September Case Updates When is a summary not a summary? 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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)
3 September Case Updates Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd v Resham Ltd [2024] EWCC 4 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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.