Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or... Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or...

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or...

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...
Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings

Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings

A Civil Justice Council working group has published a report setting out recommendations for the development of a procedure for determing mental...
When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert.

When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert.

The 'joint statement' prepared by two blockchain experts was really two statements, one from each expert. Fabrizio D'Aloia v Persons...
Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

In the 6th Episode of Expert Matters Podcast, Simon talks with retired Barrister and expert witness trainer, Giles Eyre, who is retiring as an EWI...
The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert wtiness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his...

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.

Bankole-Jones v Watford Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3100 (Admin)
Priya Vaidya 705

Bankole-Jones v Watford Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3100 (Admin)

byPriya Vaidya

The case: A statutory appeal under the Housing Act 1996, s 204 ("the 1996 Act") against a decision of the Respondent local authority to the effect that the Appellant was homeless and eligible for assistance, but that he was not in priority need. 

 

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

Already a member? Login

Commentary:  This case did not involve expert psychiatric evidence although the local authority’s reviewing officer had evidence as to the appellant’s mental health from primary care and mental health services. However, expert psychiatric evidence is sometimes obtained in such cases.

 

Learning point:

 

Where there is an issue as to homelessness assistance under the Housing Act 1996, the test for vulnerability arising from mental illness or handicap is a functional test: if there is a mental illness or handicap, make it clear whether or not, and if so to what extent and in what way, this affects the person’s ability to cope with homelessness.

 

 

 

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.