A Day in the Life of a Speech and Language Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Speech and Language Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Speech and Language Expert Witness

Julie Andrews is a consultant Speech and Language Therapist providing assessments for Special Educational Need (SEND) tribunals and writing...
Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

October 10th is World Mental Health Day and in this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at the issue of wellbeing and...
Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use...
Read between the lines, judge Read between the lines, judge

Read between the lines, judge

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and...
John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70 John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on the...
Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025 Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025

Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025

Resolve and EWI held our annual Scottish Medicolegal Conference at the Grand Central Hotel in Glasgow on 19 September. The event featured great...
Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV

Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV

Top tips and new support available to ensure you remain complaint and provide a good quality CV.
A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

Dr Richard Taylor is an Expert in the identification, verification and valuation of diamonds, gemstones, jewellery, watches, silver and antiques. He...
Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing

Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing

In the 16th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and Sean, discuss CV Writing. We look at the purpose of expert CVs, the rules and...
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...
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...

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 2539

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.