Case Updates

This is a very important judgment for psychiatrists and psychologists who employ validity testing when assessing litigants. There were two experts, both psychiatrists. One employed validity tests. The other did not and she professed no experience of their use. The psychiatrist who employed them was a registered user of the tests for the administration of which he had been trained and had paid for a licence.

Brown v Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EWHC 2204 (KB) 

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.

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

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 

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

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. 

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational decision" to end his life can be construed as satisfying Turner proposition 4. It makes clear that Turner proposition (4) is not directed at the general background or lead-up to a suicide attempt but is focused on the moment in time when suicide is attempted.

Hebda v District Court in Krakow, Poland [2025] EWHC 860 (Admin)

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in general as well as orthopaedic experts. It sets out the law on consent as established in not only Montgomery but also in McCullough. It touches on orthopaedic experts giving evidence in cases outside their own subspecialty.

Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)

This case is a useful reminder about the meaning of disability in the Equality Act and the matters that expert evidence must address. 

Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION) [2025] EAT 82) 

For paediatricians this is an example of how not to conduct an expert paediatric assessment and present the results to the court. It also illustrates some basic points applicable to all experts.

M v F [2025] EWFC 150 (B)