The issue in this judicial review did not turn on the expert evidence but the case illustrates the role of a medical reporting organisation (MRO) in a particular civil case and there are some general learning points.

Of note, the MRO did not arrange the correction of an erroneous date, it did not recognise how the evidence set out by the expert was seemingly insufficiently referenced and it did not recognise that there would be questions as to how some of the expert’s conclusions were reached.

Ivory, R (On the Application Of) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 21

This is a case which will assume much greater importance for the 15 points of practice and practical steps that the judge decided can help reduce the risk of well-meaning professionals falling into pitfalls that hinder the identification of safeguarding issues at an early stage than as a case with learning points for experts.

For some of the experts in the fields from which jointly appointed experts were instructed, it illustrates how their evidence is tested and applied in a case of suspected fabricated or induced illness (FII).

Re N (Children: Fact Finding - Perplexing Presentation/Fabricated or Induced Illness) [2024] EWFC 326

Professor Keith Rix discusses whether experts can accept instructions on the basis of mirroring the solicitors’ ‘no win – no fee’ agreement in personal injury compensation claims. This item appeared in the February edition of Expert Healthcare Witness Matters, a monthly email newsletter written by Professor Rix.

Any uncertainty as to whether a psychiatrist can provide an expert report as a paper-based assessment is answered by this case.

In this case the paper-based assessment was sufficient for the court to conclude that, having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, s 48, there were "reasons to believe that the Appellant lacks capacity". However, the fact that the court did not make a finding of a lack of capacity and transferred the case to a Tier 3 (High Court) Judge of the Court of Protection in order to determine the matter of capacity indicates how the court recognises how much more difficult it is to make a finding when the report relies on a paper-based assessment compared to a consultation with the subject of the report.   

MacPherson v Sunderland City Council (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 1579 

Although this is a dental/maxillofacial negligence case, it is of importance for all healthcare experts instructed in cases where consent may be an issue. It highlights points about which experts should enquire when there may be an issue as to consent to a surgical or other procedure. In this case it was found that the consent process was deficient in a number of respects. It is also a case which illustrates how expert evidence can separately assist the court on the issues of breach of duty, causation, condition and prognosis.

Winterbotham v Shahrak (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2633 (KB) 

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 

A psychiatrist whose evidence had often been admitted in capacity cases was assisted in this case of a hearing-impaired person by an interpreter who had British Sign Language (BSL) Level 1 training. Her assessment was subsequently criticised as she conducted the assessment without ‘suitable specialist learning support’.

For psychiatrists and psychologists, the case illustrates the importance, in the case of some hearing-impaired subjects, of being assisted, or of the assessment being carried out, by a psychologist or psychiatrist who has experience of the assessment and treatment of hearing-disabled people.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ (Rev1) [2024] EWCOP 72 (T3) 

This is an important judgment for experts who prepare personal injury reports in the Republic of Ireland but also for all experts, in all of the jurisdictions in the British Isles, for its description of the judicial analysis of expert evidence. It deals with procedure in Ireland for the instruction of specialist medical experts through plaintiffs’ general practitioners.   

Lynch v Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland [2024] IEHC 587 

This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The case illustrates the challenges for experts when the clinical condition in issue is rarely encountered (or at least rarely recognised) in normal NHS practice. The detail of this judgment may be of interest only to neurologists and vascular surgeons but makes useful reading for any expert instructed in a case where non-freezing cold injury is in issue. 

Fraser v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 2977 (KB)

This case concerns an important boundary matter that sometimes arises for orthopaedic experts in relation to biomechanics and ergonomics. These are areas of expertise for which the orthopaedic surgeon’s ‘working knowledge’ may be sufficient, thereby avoiding the time and expense of instructing a further expert just as in cases where knowledge and experience of orthopaedics in general is sufficient and it is not necessary to instruct an orthopaedic sub-specialist.

Swierzko v Mathiesons Bakery Ltd [2024] SC EDIN 43