21 November Case Updates Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? Range of Opinion, Cross-examination, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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)
19 November Case Updates When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. 10. Report Writing, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Cryptocurrency 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)
14 November Case Updates The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work Orthopaedics, Paediatrics, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Pathology, Histopathology, Radiology The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert wtiness, 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)
6 November Case Updates Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings 05. Rules and Regulations, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Technology and Construction Court Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This case referred to a circumstance more commonly, or perhaps seldom otherwise, encountered in the Technology and Construction Court.
1 November Case Updates Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531 Fitness to plead, Capacity, 10. Report Writing, 11. Responding to questions This case is about whether the judge erred in finding that Ms Soophia Khan had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. This is an important judgment for any psychiatrist called upon to assess fitness to plead and stand trial in a criminal case or litigation capacity in a civil case; and important also for any psychologist whose evidence may be considered in such a case. It is not just because it compares the tests for fitness to plead and stand trial and litigation capacity; it is a rare illustration of not only how a judge at first instance assesses expert evidence in such a case but also of how the court of appeal analyses the judicial reasoning when such a case is appealed.
11 October Case Updates Litigation capacity Psychiatry, litigation capacity, 10. Report Writing, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Jersey Although accepting the medical expert's conclusion on the First Defendant's capacity to appear in court, the Bailiff noted that any further application for an adjournment on health grounds would require a much more significant explanation of the First Defendant's medical history, and precise problems and prognosis, to be provided well in advance. Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi and Ors [2024] JRC 086
3 October Case Updates Fact finding by experts Facts, Ireland, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements The court could see no basis on which the plaintiffs could seek to rely on any agreement reached between the experts as to the underlying facts. Nolan v Dildar Ltd (Approved) [2024] IEHC 4
27 September Case Updates Pedestrian-vehicle impact speed and injury severity Head injury criteria scores, Impact speed, Pedestrian-vehicle collision For accident reconstruction, emergency medicine and neurosurgery experts, this case illustrates the interdependence of accident reconstruction and medical evidence and the need for the medical experts to have regard to the accident reconstruction evidence. Colizzi v Coulson [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)
25 September Case Updates Good practice points in asylum and immigration psychiatric reports Credibility, Expert Report, Judicial critism, Expert anonymity, Exaggeration, Feigning, Istanbul Protocol, Remote Assessment The report of an expert in psychiatry was undermined by his acceptance of the appellent's account which, unbeknown to him, a previous tribunal had found to lack credibility. The court also attached less weight to the expert's assessment than it did to a hospital letter because the assessment had been conducted remotely. Chahal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2024001451
17 September Case Updates Cardiotocograph – normal or abnormal Obstetrics, Midwifery, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints This case is primarily of interest to obstetricians, illustrating the court’s approach to the disputed interpretation of cardiotocographic evidence. There were no midwifery issues as such, but it may be of some interest to midwifery experts. The general learning points speak for themselves without reading the summary. Woods v Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 1432 (KB)