Case Updates

Although this is a dental/maxillofacial negligence case, it is of importance for all healthcare experts instructed in cases where consent may be an issue. It highlights points about which experts should enquire when there may be an issue as to consent to a surgical or other procedure. In this case it was found that the consent process was deficient in a number of respects. It is also a case which illustrates how expert evidence can separately assist the court on the issues of breach of duty, causation, condition and prognosis.

Winterbotham v Shahrak (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2633 (KB) 

For surveyor experts, this case illustrates some very basic errors and it may therefore also be a useful case for expert surveyor witness training.   

McBride v McGuigan & Anor [2024] NIMaster 20 

A psychiatrist whose evidence had often been admitted in capacity cases was assisted in this case of a hearing-impaired person by an interpreter who had British Sign Language (BSL) Level 1 training. Her assessment was subsequently criticised as she conducted the assessment without ‘suitable specialist learning support’.

For psychiatrists and psychologists, the case illustrates the importance, in the case of some hearing-impaired subjects, of being assisted, or of the assessment being carried out, by a psychologist or psychiatrist who has experience of the assessment and treatment of hearing-disabled people.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ (Rev1) [2024] EWCOP 72 (T3) 

This is an important judgment for experts who prepare personal injury reports in the Republic of Ireland but also for all experts, in all of the jurisdictions in the British Isles, for its description of the judicial analysis of expert evidence. It deals with procedure in Ireland for the instruction of specialist medical experts through plaintiffs’ general practitioners.   

Lynch v Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland [2024] IEHC 587 

This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The case illustrates the challenges for experts when the clinical condition in issue is rarely encountered (or at least rarely recognised) in normal NHS practice. The detail of this judgment may be of interest only to neurologists and vascular surgeons but makes useful reading for any expert instructed in a case where non-freezing cold injury is in issue. 

Fraser v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 2977 (KB)

This case concerns an important boundary matter that sometimes arises for orthopaedic experts in relation to biomechanics and ergonomics. These are areas of expertise for which the orthopaedic surgeon’s ‘working knowledge’ may be sufficient, thereby avoiding the time and expense of instructing a further expert just as in cases where knowledge and experience of orthopaedics in general is sufficient and it is not necessary to instruct an orthopaedic sub-specialist.

Swierzko v Mathiesons Bakery Ltd [2024] SC EDIN 43

At a time when psychologists in particular are concerned about psychological evidence being given by psychologists who are unregulated, this case illustrates the risks when an ‘independent’ social worker gives psychological evidence.

The learning points are of general application. The specifics of the case are for psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers.

Coventry City Council v XX [2024] EWFC 249 (B) 

The judge noted that the expert readily accepted that integral to his reasoning was that he did not believe the claimant as to the symptoms he had suffered and, probably, teh claimant's account of the incident. In the judge's view, it is entirely outside the remit of an expert to decide which witnesses of fact he believes or disbelieves.

Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB) 

The 'joint statement' prepared by two blockchain experts was really two statements, one from each expert.

Fabrizio D'Aloia v Persons Unknown Category A & Ors [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch)

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert witness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his examination of the forensic material and closed his mind to possible or probable accidental causes for the injuries identified. 

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G [2024] EWHC 2200 (Fam)