28 May Case Updates Rough or inappropriate handling of an infant CMV infection, bone biochemistry As in many family cases, the issue here was the cause of the child’s injuries. It includes a distinction to be made between handling in hospital, such as holding of wrists for blood to be drawn, application of masks to assist breathing and holding of head still, to what would be expected in a normal domestic setting. It illustrates how a CMV infection complicated the court’s analysis of the evidence. N, In the Matter Of [2024] EWFC 378
23 May Case Updates Unresponsive episodes in a child and the role of chloral hydrate 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, chloral hydrate, epilepsy, unresponsive episodes For the specialists this case illustrates how the court investigates case of perplexing presentations in children and the importance of considering as many as possible explanations. This was a case where the medical history was complex and where the material events occurred over a 5 months’ admission, so the volume of medical records must have been immense. The court was obviously greatly assisted by the expert factual evidence of one of the child’s consultants, specifically his summary of the child’s medical conditions and his table of medication. The weakness of one of the experts was that he had not sufficiently familiarised himself with the contents of the medical records and was not as familiar as with the chronology of the case as he might have been if he had created a chronology in his own investigation of the case. A Local Authority v Mother [2024] EWHC 3511 (Fam)
14 May Case Updates Aerotoxic syndrome Neurology, Neuropsychology, Scotland, Toxicology, Aviation Medicine, aerotoxic syndrome 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. Gough v Cannons Law Practice; Montague-Trenchard v Cannons Law Practice (Court of Session) [2025] CSOH 28
8 May Case Updates Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and litigation capacity litigation capacity, 11. Report Writing, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits In short, the case illustrates a very common situation in which, on the basis of what is often an appropriately diagnosed psychological condition or mental disorder, it is asserted that a litigant is not capable of participating in legal proceedings. In criminal cases, in relation to the accused, the issue is usually fitness to plead and stand trial. In civil proceedings the issue is litigation capacity. As is often the case, the court’s decision is influenced by how the litigant has functioned in previous cases or earlier in the instant proceedings. F v W [2024] IEHC 631
2 May Case Updates Medical evidence and clearance for a dependent elderly relative to enter the UK If, which is not clear, medical evidence that assists in the application of the adult dependent relative provisions as to entrance clearance for dependent adults to enter the UK is usually provided by doctors in the country in which the dependent relatives reside, this judgment may be of little interest to healthcare experts in the UK. However, it makes a very basic point about the format of an expert report and it illustrates how important it is to know and understand the particular test or rule that is applicable. Ali v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] UKAITUR UI2024000707
24 April Case Updates Does the face fit? 11. Report Writing, Criminal standard of proof, odontology, possibility-probability, facial recognition Experts are advised, if possible, to avoid expressing opinions on the basis of possibility. The usually applicable stand of proof is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities or more probable than not. The criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (and not beyond all reasonable [sic] doubt as it is sometimes misquoted). In this case it was submitted that the expert used the terms "possibility", "high possibility" and "extremely high possibility" interchangeably and that this was insufficient to satisfy the criminal standard of proof. However, when the court analysed the expert’s report as a whole, it was clear that a tribunal of fact could safely conclude that the criminal standard of proof was satisfied. Government of Japan v Chappell [2025] EWHC 166
22 April Case Updates Not a bridge too far – dental negligence Causation, Dentistry, Consent, 11. Report Writing, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Bridge, Implant, Ischaemic Colitis, NSAID The detail of this case is of relevance to dental experts and attention is drawn to the clarity and particularity with which Professor Harding set out the instances of treatment of the Claimant which was below the standard she could reasonably have expected and then identified the consequences thereof. There is a gastroenterological and pharmacological dimension to the case because it was alleged, and found, that the pain resulting from the negligent dental treatment necessitated treatment with NAISDs which caused ischaemic colitis. Bailey v Bijlani [2025] EWHC 175 (KB)
17 April Case Updates Pacemaker PTSD? Ireland, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, PSTD, Local Anaesthesia, Pacemaker, Pain, Cardiology This is primarily a case for cardiologists, cardiac nurses and anaesthetists with a learning point for psychiatric experts. Viewed from outside the jurisdiction the striking feature of the case is that the plaintiff’s general practitioner records documenting a previous psychiatric history, which she had denied when assessed by the two psychiatric experts, were not disclosed to the defendant until five days into the trial. Tynan v Bon Secours Health System Company Ltd by Guarantee [2025] IEHC 81
15 April Case Updates Advising as to the applicable law Capacity, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 07. Receiving Instructions, Triangulation The detail of this judgment is for experts who conduct capacity assessments. Two points arise of more general interest. First, the expert, who had been involved in the case for six years, changed her opinion. In the language of the court it was a 180o degree change. The court thought that this called for a greater discussion in the analysis section of the report. This seems to have been that section of the report for which experts use the heading ‘Facts and assumed facts’ or ‘Factual analysis’. Second, the expert suggested that the issues, or some of the issues, in the case could be resolved by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court. But there had been no application for the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, it was not referred to in the letter of instruction, and it might not – as a matter of law – have been available. This is a good example of the advice to experts to leave the law to the lawyers. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v LS [2025] EWCOP 10 (T3)
10 April Case Updates Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words Extradition, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Complex PSTD, Sexual Abuse, ECHR This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s account. This is not the same as advising the court as to the reliability of the subject. It is the reliability of the account that is being assessed, not the reliability of the person giving the account. This is why it is good practice to open the Opinion section of an expert report with an introductory section sometimes headed ‘Evaluation of evidence’ or sometimes ‘Clinical plausibility’. That there was no challenge to the reliability of the experts’ evidence is not surprising. They explained how they assessed the appellant and the duration of the assessments. ZA v Cornetu District Court, Romania [2025] EWHC 595 (Admin)