27 March Case Updates Expert evidence in judicial review proceedings 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, Asylum, Document authenticity, Tazkira The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration. MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)
20 March Case Updates Mark Dobson v The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2025] EWHC 272 (KB) Forensic psychiatry, Mental Health Act The judge determined that the evidence of the defendant’s expert on the mental health of a man detained by the police was to be preferred in every respect over the claimant’s expert because he had relevant experience of the matters in respect of which he was giving evidence and adopted the right approach.
13 March Case Updates Lost in translation 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence In this patent case, the judge noted that neither expert was a native English speaker and both had difficulties with questions put to them during cross-examination. The misstep of one expert over the word “buckling”, which he had used in his report, and his use of a translator during cross-examination for reference, led the judge to approach his written evidence with a degree of caution. Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited [2025] EWHC 497 (Pat)
7 March Case Updates Expert Evidence by the Back Door 06. Rules and Regulations, 16. Criticism and Complaints The judge in this claim for professional negligence struck out a witness statement which contained paragraphs which were pure opinion, made by the witness as a self-proclaimed expert, noting that it was expert evidence by the back door, in contravention of CPR Part 35 and plainly abusive. Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB)
27 February Case Updates Krzysztof Lukasik v Circuit Court, Praga in Warsaw (A Polish Judicial Authority) [2025] EWHC 282 (Admin) Extradition, 11. Report Writing, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Child Psychologist While the Judge in this extradition appeal ultimately reached the same conclusion as the District Court Judge, and dismissed the appeal, he pointed out significant deficiencies in how the District Court Judge had treated the expert psychological evidence.
20 February Case Updates Kohler Mira Limited v Norcros Group (Holdings) Limited [2024] EWHC 3247 (Ch) Patent Law, 11. Report Writing, 01. Starting your Expert Witness Business, 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Prior Art, CV Writing The judge preferred the evidence of the Claimant's expert because of the Defendant's expert’s approach to his task as expert, his confusion over the proper approach to what prior art was and was not in the common general knowledge, the number of assertions he made which he was forced to resile from as incorrect, and his failure to acknowledge a key fact.
13 February Case Updates Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch) 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Forensic Accounting The judge found that the forensic accounting expert’s approach of forming an opinion as to the value of the Company, then carrying out a detailed calculation and only if it matches his initial opinion accepting it, undermined the credibility and reliability of his opinion as to the value of the Company.
31 January Case Updates JXX v Scott Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) 06. Rules and Regulations, 03. Setting Fees and Getting Paid, Expert Fees, Medical Reporting Organisations, 02. Working with Agencies or Panels In considering whether the claimant should be required to provide a breakdown of expert and medical agency fees, the judge decided to offer the claimant the option of either providing the breakdown of expert and medical reporting organisation fees, to enable an assessment of work of both the expert and the MRO, or not providing that information and having the expert fees assessed on the hypothetical basis that there was no medical reporting organisation involved.
21 January Case Updates Rebecca Lochrie v Matthew Edwards Judgment G48YJ355 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Laser Eye Surgery, LASIK The Claimant alleged that the Defendant acted negligently in obtaining her consent for laser eye surgery including failing to adequately investigate her ophthalmic condition prior to the surgery.
16 January Case Updates NMC Health PLC v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 3021 (Comm) CPR, 06. Rules and Regulations, Adjournment The defendant made an application for adjournment on the proposition that it could not be ready for trial because its experts required additional time to complete their reports. However, it was unable to demonstrate that it would be unfair to proceed with the existing trial.