29 October Case Updates Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 07. Working with Instructing Parties, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding that the primary duty of an expert witness is not to say anything that may damage the instructing party’s case if it can be avoided.
25 October Case Updates How not to use AI in expert evidence 10. Report Writing, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 16. Maintaining your professional edge, Artificial Intelligence, AI, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits In this US case, an expert in fiduciary services used Microsoft’s Copilot to cross-check calculations he used in expert evidence. He was unable to recall the prompts he used, state the sources Copilot relied on, or explain how the tool worked and arrived at its outputs. The judge provided some useful insight into the challenges with using AI in expert evidence.
22 October Case Updates Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) 05. Rules and Regulations, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.
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.
18 September News The Single Biggest Change White Paper 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 02. Setting Fees and Getting Paid, 06. Receiving Instructions, 07. Working with Instructing Parties, 08. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 11. Responding to questions, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits Earlier this year, we asked our members about the single biggest change they’ve seen since they started practicing as an Expert Witness. With members from numerous disciplines who’ve been practicing from 40 years to 4 months, we expected a wide variety of insights, and we weren’t disappointed.
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)
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.
27 August Case Updates Jonathan Ewan Marcus v Edward Quintin Marcus [2024] EWHC 2086 (Ch) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 11. Responding to questions, 15. Criticism and Complaints In the circumstances of the case, including the absence of a timely challenge to lack of form, the judge gave due weight to an expert report and the answers to questions without subtraction for lack of compliance with CPR 35 and rule 3 of the Practice Directions.