In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports, including addenda and other admissible communications. The fundamental disagreement was the diagnosis: PTSD or adjustment disorder. It appears that four of the reports by the defendant’s expert were in rebuttal of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert. This summary does not reflect the considerable extent to which the court had to analyse the evidence as to diagnosis. In the court’s judgment diagnosis hardly mattered. The judge said that more important, in his view, was the impact that the condition had on the plaintiff’s everyday functioning and lifestyle. Then when awarding damages, he said that the psychiatric damage suffered by the plaintiff attributable to the accident could be described as moderately severe whether that be under a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychiatric damage generally. 

Within this update we feature the well-publicised case of WH Holding Limited and E20 Stadium LLP [2025] EWHC 140 (Comm).  The case concerns a successful challenge of an expert’s decision in the context of a concession agreement for sporting events. 

The claim was initiated as a High Court claim for declaratory relief under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  The judgment was released in January of this year having been heard by Paul Mitchell KC last December. 

The claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution.

MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)

There was no dispute about the expert evidence in this case but it is of interest for several reasons. First, it sets out in some detail the evidence of experts in educational psychology and occupational therapy and it therefore provides examples for those healthcare specialties of how to make their bodies of knowledge understandable to a tribunal. Second, it illustrates the role of experts when their evidence is admitted by a specialist tribunal. Third, it sets out the test of which experts need to be aware in cases of alleged disability discrimination arising from a school’s treatment of a pupil with behavioural difficulties. Fourth, although psychiatrists and psychologists are often advised to keep the unconscious out of the witness box, for reasons to do with proof, it is encouraging to find a tribunal accepting such evidence.

B v The Proprietor of St Dominic's Grammar School [2025] UKUT 48 (AAC) 

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners alleging that they failed to act on a potential diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease. The judge found that one of the GP experts had trespassed on the judicial function to determine the facts and had sought to advocate on behalf of the second defendant.

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 

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)

The claimants, who carried on a business breeding falcons, made allegations of harassment and nuisance against their neighbour, who operated a small farm neighbouring their property. While the judge accepted some of the claimants’ criticisms of one of the defendants’ experts, he also noted that the claimants could not complain about the consequences of their putting in new evidence that was not in accordance with the timetable laid down at the CCMC.

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 

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