The Medical Expert in Court The Medical Expert in Court

The Medical Expert in Court

Fans of true crime and anyone involved in giving expert evidence might be interested in a recent podcast episode from EWI Fellow, Dr Harry Brunjes.
Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4 Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

The claimant alleged that the vibrating tools he used while employed by the defendant caused Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. The judge criticised one of...
EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme

EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme

The Expert Witness Institute has set up a new partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme which is a collaborative initiative between the...
RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th... RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th...

RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th...

The RICS is seeking feedback from public stakeholders on the updating of its Professional Standard for Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses. The...
Investigating possible non-accidental injuries in children Investigating possible non-accidental injuries in children

Investigating possible non-accidental injuries in children

In this case of suspected non-accidental injuries to an infant, only one of the experts was required to give evidence. This was Professor Fleming and...
DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025]... DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025]...

DHV (A Protected Party through his Litigation Friend WTX) v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2025]...

The Claimant brought a claim for compensation in the UK after he was hit by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Mallorca and suffered major...
Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness... Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

In the 15th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkis, discuss the power of EWI membership and the...
A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

Marisa Shek is a Healthcare Architect and owner of Shek Architects. As an Expert Witness, she specialises in the field of accommodation for disabled...
Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from...
A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

Susan Jones, founder of SJ Consultancy, has been a town planning consultant for over 40 years. As an Expert Witness, she provides evidence at public...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...
A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

Dr. Rohit Seth is trained in Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hair Transplant Surgery with over 20 years of surgical experience. A practicing...

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.

de Renee v Galbraith-Marten (Rev) [2022] EWFC 118
Wiebke Morgan 2396

de Renee v Galbraith-Marten (Rev) [2022] EWFC 118

byWiebke Morgan

The case: an application by Catherine de Renée for financial provision for the parties’ daughter. The mother bolstered her application by filing, without permission and in direct breach of the judge’s directions order, a further 25 page statement which included a forensic report by Sid Harding of SRH Forensics LLP. 

 

Ruling on admissibility: With considerable hesitation the judge agreed to read the report. However, he placed no weight on the contents of the report not only because of its filing in blatant breach of the law, but also because of the following matters.

 “at the end of an experts report there must be a statement that the expert understands and  has complied with the expert’s duty to the court”.

No such statement was appended to Mr Harding’s report.

Mr Harding appeared to have been shown documents which had been disclosed in earlier proceedings by the husband to the wife, without the court’s permission. Such disclosure would be a contempt of court by both the discloser and the recipient of the documents.

Mr Harding put forward his opinions based on the most flimsy of materials, without seeking the husband’s contribution or clarifications. This failure to seek any clarifications from the husband was considered egregious, and flew in the face of the most elementary rule governing an expert. It is basic, if you are going to put forward an expert’s report, that it must be objective. And objectivity requires, where there are lacunae, that clarification is sought from the other party before going into print.

In the absence of up-to-date and reliable evidence from the husband, Mr Harding’s conclusions were largely conjectural. His was a highly partial exercise.

 

The judge was surprised that Mr Harding, holding himself out as a partner in a firm that focuses on forensic accounting, should have been apparently entirely oblivious of the legal obligations that attach to people who hold themselves out as experts in court proceedings. The judge found it very difficult to accept that Mr Harding was unaware that the permission of the court was needed to instruct him in such proceedings.

 

The judge’s conclusion was that the process by which the report was produced was so flawed, and the material on which it was based so limited and conjectural, that it would be entirely wrong for him to place any weight on it whatsoever.

 

Learning points:

  •             In a family case, do not accept instructions as an expert unless you are satisfied that the court has given permission for you to be instructed.
  •             Ensure that your report complies with any procedural rules
  •             Ensure that you have sufficient factual information upon which to base your opinion.
  •             If you need further information or clarification in order to address an issue, ask for the information or clarification.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.