19 December Podcast Podcast Episode 7: Review of 2024 Credibility, Range of Opinion, Fundamental dishonesty, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 05. Alternative Dispute Resolution In the last podcast for 2024, we look back at the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over the course of 2024, and highlight the ten things to look out for in 2025. From knowing and complying with your duties, to reevaluating and changing you opinion and handling fundamental dishonesty, this year in review has it all.
19 December Case Updates When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness Psychology, Psychiatry, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance. Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)
19 December News The EWI to leave X Social media, 04. Marketing The Expert Witness Institute has made the decision to discontinue its presence on X (formerly Twitter).
19 December News EWI Refreshes Core Training offering Legal role of an expert witness, 11. Report Writing, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 17. Maintaining your professional edge The Expert Witness Institute (EWI) is excited to announce a refresh of its core training offering.
18 December Case Updates A fundamentally dishonest claimant This case concerns a fundamentally dishonest claimant. The judge held that the experts in the case were reliant on self-reporting by the claimant, who the judge found to be wholly unreliable, as to the extent to which the alleged injuries suffered had impacted her life. Scully -v- Atherton (& others) E13YX311
13 December News Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Transparency and Open Justice Board is now engaging on its proposed Key Objectives. The Key Objectives represent the high-level outcomes that, once finalised, will guide the Board’s work. They will be used to identify areas where changes can and should be made, as well as to measure the outcomes from any change programme.
13 December Case Updates An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Bermuda, DNA Evidence, Privy Council In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of errors in the collection, examination and interpretation of the DNA expert evidence used in the trial. Julian Washington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda) [2024] UKPC 34
11 December Day in the life Day in the Life of a Financial Expert Uwe Wystup is a practitioner in the field of foreign exchange options, as well as a senior academic, trainer, and judge. He is the founder of MathFinance, a consulting and software company specialising in quantitative finance and risk management and providing expert witness services.
10 December Case Updates Non-freezing cold injury 06. Rules and Regulations, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Non freezing cold injury 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)
5 December Case Updates One tray short of a baker’s dozen: injury on the production line Orthopaedics, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, biomechanics 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