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

At a time when psychologists in particular are concerned about psychological evidence being given by psychologists who are unregulated, this case illustrates the risks when an ‘independent’ social worker gives psychological evidence.

The learning points are of general application. The specifics of the case are for psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers.

Coventry City Council v XX [2024] EWFC 249 (B) 

The father sought permission to rely on fresh evidence that he had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in an appeal against care and placement orders made in respect of his daughter. The judge reviewed the law on admitting fresh evidence on appeal before applying it to the case.

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) 

A Civil Justice Council working group has published a report setting out recommendations for the development of a procedure for determing mental capcity in civil proceedings. The working group notes this has been addressed to date by ad hoc solutions which have led to inefficiency, inconsistency of practice, and actions being taken without a clear legal basis.

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)

In the 6th Episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon talks with retired Barrister and expert witness trainer, Giles Eyre, who is retiring as an EWI trainer at the end of this year. Giles offers invaluable insights and advice on the common mistakes experts make, how to handle giving a range of opinion, the key things that make a good report, ensuring confidence in the courtroom and cross-examinations, along with lots of other great learning points. This podcast is an essential listen for Expert Witnesses, and anyone thinking of the entering the profession.

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert witness, 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) 

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. 

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20 years. Here, she explains how she got involved in expert work, why it keeps her interested, and shares her advice for other medical professionals interested in getting into the Expert Witness world.