Case Updates

After summarising the case law, the court in this case stated that there is a high threshold to be reached in order for ill health or physical disability to impinge upon the court's approach to assessing the appropriate method of sentencing an offender. This is not to say that ill health or disability will never be taken into consideration as is indicated by these terms: ‘not generally’, ‘not automatically’, ‘can take account’, ‘may enable’, ‘not in itself’, ‘it may be permissible’, ‘in appropriate cases’, ‘permissible to have regard’ and ‘purely on the basis’.

Lavery, R v (Sentencing Remarks) [2026] NICC 5

In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports, including addenda and other admissible communications. The fundamental disagreement was the diagnosis: PTSD or adjustment disorder. It appears that four of the reports by the defendant’s expert were in rebuttal of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert. This summary does not reflect the considerable extent to which the court had to analyse the evidence as to diagnosis. In the court’s judgment diagnosis hardly mattered. The judge said that more important, in his view, was the impact that the condition had on the plaintiff’s everyday functioning and lifestyle. Then when awarding damages, he said that the psychiatric damage suffered by the plaintiff attributable to the accident could be described as moderately severe whether that be under a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychiatric damage generally. 

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 

This case concerns three important issues in personal injury litigation in Northern Ireland: the extent of the plaintiff’s medical records to which an expert can have access; what the expert can ask about how the injury was sustained; and whether a plaintiff can refuse to be assessed by a particular expert.