Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531 Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

This case is about whether the judge erred in finding that Ms Soophia Khan had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. This is an...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding...
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Independence, bias and conflicts of interest Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Hon Mr Justice Trower provides invaluable guidance for Expert Witnesses at the 2024 the Sir Michael Davies lecture.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...
Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Simon and Sean discuss Single Joint Experts and catch up with two EWI members who act as Single Joint Experts to hear about their experiences, the...

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 1565

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.