30 April Case Updates Legal teams need to observe Expert’s fatigue & concentration Patent, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 12. Responding to questions, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 17. Maintaining your professional edge This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn. The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved. The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated. This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.
28 March Case Updates Navigating the excessive difference in valuations from two Expert Quantity Surveyors 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 12. Responding to questions, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 17. Maintaining your professional edge The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors. Both sides approached their instructions to their expert from different angles which caused difficulties at trial. This explained why the valuations were worlds apart (or as the judge commented they had a “manifestly excessive difference”) and needed some careful scrutiny and assessment by the judge. Whilst the approach of examining both valuations is very case specific, there are some fundamental tests which can be taken away. An objective test was used several times as a benchmark looking at the scope of works that a ‘reasonable owner’ or ‘purchaser’ would require. The key legal issue of “proportionality” was also visited frequently throughout the assessment of valuations. Iya Patarkatsishvili & Anor v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)