The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited [2025] EWHC 2486... The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited [2025] EWHC 2486...

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited [2025] EWHC 2486...

The defendant was contracted, during the Covid lockdowns, to source and supply sterile gowns, which the claimant subsequently asserted were not...
Forensic Science Regulator Guidance on Forensic Science Activities: Interpretation and... Forensic Science Regulator Guidance on Forensic Science Activities: Interpretation and...

Forensic Science Regulator Guidance on Forensic Science Activities: Interpretation and...

The Forensic Science Regulator has published new Guidance on Forensic Science Activities: Interpretation and Communication. The Guidance applies to...
Expert Terms and Conditions of Engagement Expert Terms and Conditions of Engagement

Expert Terms and Conditions of Engagement

We have just completed the regular review of our Standard Expert Terms and Conditions of Engagement. The purpose of the Terms and Conditions is...
New EWI Guidance on Responding to Written Questions New EWI Guidance on Responding to Written Questions

New EWI Guidance on Responding to Written Questions

We have just published our new Guide on Responding to Written Questions. Informed by the knowledge and experience of the EWI Editorial and...
Why you must verify AI-generated content in your expert report Why you must verify AI-generated content in your expert report

Why you must verify AI-generated content in your expert report

The Court excluded consideration of the expert testimony of an expert on the dangers of AI and misinformation, after he submitted an expert...
Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors [2025] EWHC 1435 (Ch) Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors [2025] EWHC 1435 (Ch)

Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors [2025] EWHC 1435 (Ch)

The two handwriting experts in this case were given completely different samples of comparator signatures and did not undertake the same task. The...
A Day in the Life of a Veterinary Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Veterinary Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Veterinary Expert Witness

Veterinary surgeon, Jeremy Stattersfield, has been guiding courts on veterinary medicine since 1981. He told us how he got into the Expert Witness...
Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions

Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions

In January's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss responding to written questions. We look at the rules and regulations, discuss a...
Podcast Episode 20: Review of 2025 Podcast Episode 20: Review of 2025

Podcast Episode 20: Review of 2025

Join us for the last podcast of 2025! With some festive cheer, we review 2025, with the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over...
A Day in the Life of an Orthopaedic Spinal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of an Orthopaedic Spinal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of an Orthopaedic Spinal Expert Witness

Mr Niall Craig is a Consultant Orthopaedic Spinal Surgeon and Expert Witness specialising in complex spinal cases. He tells us about his professional...
Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice

Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice

In this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we explore recent developments in Transparency and Open Justice. You can also catch our...
A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness

Vanessa Jane Davies is the founder of Skin Camouflage Services, an independent expert practice offering paramedical skin camouflage, non-invasive scar...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Aerotoxic syndrome
Keith Rix 2225

Aerotoxic syndrome

byKeith Rix

 

Commentary

Personal injury claims are being brought by approximately 220 pilots and cabin crew at the High Court in London on the grounds of aerotoxic syndrome (ATS). This group of claimants includes 51 claims which were issued by Thompsons in March 2019 involving pilots and cabin crew working for EasyJet, British Airways, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic. These two claims are not included in these ongoing English collective proceedings. These were claims by two pilots who lost the chance of bringing successful claims as a result of the admitted negligence of a Scottish law practice.

Although the central medical issue in this case was aerotoxicity, it is important to bear in mind that what the court did not have to decide whether the pursuers, airline pilots, had proved causation on the balance of probabilities. Rather, it was required to value the chances of success in their underlying claims that they lost as a result of the solicitors’ admitted negligence. It is therefore important not to see this as a "trial within a trial". However, experts instructed in the collective proceedings will be greatly assisted by this judgment because it identifies the nature of the expert evidence that will be needed, it reveals how the credibility of experts may be challenged and how their evidence is likely to be tested by the adverse parties and judged by the court. 

Case

These were two separate actions. Both actions were brought by former pilots as clients against a firm of solicitors. Both pursuers were interested in pursuing claims for damages against their former employers. Ultimately, no such claims were brought by the defender on behalf of the pursuers. In each of the present actions, the pursuer sued the defender for breach of contract and reparation for the loss of a chance to have brought personal injury claims against their former employers.

In each case, the pursuer claimed that he suffers from a number of chronic symptoms which had prevented him from continuing his work as a pilot. Specifically, each pursuer claimed to suffer from aerotoxic syndrome (ATS). This is a controversial diagnosis. The condition is not recognised in the International Classification of Diseases and there are no generally accepted or validated diagnostic criteria for it. Each pursuer maintained that his condition had been caused by exposure to toxic fumes on a daily basis while he was employed as a pilot.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.