We always appreciate it when we read judgments where the judge has taken the opportunity to set out explicitly the reasons why an expert was impressive or credible, such as the approach in the case of Gillian Dakin v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The proceedings concern a stroke which the claimant suffered which was caused by atrial fibrillation. Prior to the stroke, the claimant was seen by a general physician. It has been admitted by the defendant they failed to arrange a 24-hour electrocardiogram monitor in response to the claimant’s symptoms, and it is further accepted that represented a breach of the duty of care which the defendant owed to the claimant.

Despite attacks on the expert’s credibility, the judge provided praise for all three experts noting:

“I next heard evidence from Mr D. He was an entirely straightforward witness. He answered questions clearly, giving relevant context where appropriate but not over-embellishing answers. He readily explained when he could not recall a matter, or when what he was saying was his interpretation of matters as opposed to what he had been told directly by the claimant. He was equally honest and credible.

Professor B provided his evidence next. He was an impressive expert witness. He offered evidence-based reasons and reflected upon his answers. He sought his best to assist the court.

The final evidence I heard was from Dr K, and I found him to be an equally impressive witness. He based his evidence on the documentation before the court and reflected upon the oral evidence heard. It was evident he too sought his best to assist the court. I do not accept the criticism submitted on behalf of the claimant that he had assumed a role of advocate, and instead I found him entirely measured and balanced.”

 

Key learning points for anyone giving oral evidence:

• Provide clear, measured, and balanced responses giving relevant content
• Ensure your answers are evidence-based
• Do not over-embellish your answers