Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and... Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice...
Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in...
Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC... Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC...

Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC...

The barrister for the Claimant was unable to explain to the court's satisfaction why she had cited several non-existent cases in pleadings. The...
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...
Online Procedure Rule Committee Consultation: Inclusion framework and pre-action model Online Procedure Rule Committee Consultation: Inclusion framework and pre-action model

Online Procedure Rule Committee Consultation: Inclusion framework and pre-action model

The Online Procedure Rule Committee ('OPRC') is holding a consultation on its draft inclusion framework and pre-action model. Responses to the...
ADHD, ASD and disability ADHD, ASD and disability

ADHD, ASD and disability

This case is a useful reminder about the meaning of disability in the Equality Act and the matters that expert evidence must address.  Stedman...
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...
AI and the Expert Witness AI and the Expert Witness

AI and the Expert Witness

It’s impossible to ignore Artificial Intelligence (AI) which suddenly exploded into the public conscious a couple of years ago with the launch...
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...
A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

Ryan Shields is a digital forensics expert who has worked in the police and private sector. Here, he explains why he is passionate about using his...
Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any...

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.

Experts hit the headlines with Conflicts of Interest
Simon Berney-Edwards 4142

Experts hit the headlines with Conflicts of Interest

bySimon Berney-Edwards

In the last 24 hours, two cases have come to our attention where the importance of declaring a conflict of interest has been highlighted.

 

The first was in the case of Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762. This was an appeal heard in the High Court on the 24th March by Mr Justice Mostyn where Bux was appealing his removal from the GMC register. 

 

The Medical Practice Tribunal had "made findings of fact that the appellant had acted in a state of conflict of interest, dishonestly and for financial gain."

 

The reasons for this are listed as:

i) that the appellant acted in a state of conflict of interest by accepting instructions (through an agent, Medico Legal and Litigation Services Ltd ("MLLS")) to prepare medico-legal reports in respect of holiday sickness claims, from a firm of solicitors (AMS Solicitors Limited ("AMS")), in which his wife, Mrs Sehana Bux, was a salaried partner;

ii) that in one case he gave a deliberately false answer (in a reply endorsed with a statement of truth) to questions posed to him as an expert under CPR 35.6;

iii) that he made diagnoses without proper evidence, without identifying the existence of a range of opinions, and had in his reports failed to follow the requirements of CPR Part 35; and

iv) that he improperly performed a circumcision procedure in the community and in so doing failed to recognise or advise in terms of the risk of doing so.

 

Mr Justice Mostyn summarised:

 

"In my judgment the MPT was correct to reach the conclusion that it did. I reiterate: a conflict of interest will arise when an expert witness's opinions are actually influenced, or are capable of being influenced, by his personal interests...... In this case the MPT had abundant evidence which demonstrated the following facts:
i) As an expert witness the appellant owed to the court a duty of independence and objectivity.

ii) On the other hand, the defendant had a personal interest in keeping up to speed the lucrative throughput of medical reports the benefit from which accrued not only to himself but also to his wife. She was a co-shareholder in the company to which the proceeds of the work were paid, and was a partner in the firm of solicitors providing him with the work.

iii) In 2016 it was abundantly clear to the appellant that he had to disclose his marital relationship not only to the defendant's insurers but also to the court. This was clear to the appellant not only from the terms of the codes of guidance to which he was subject, but also as a result of the letter written in 2011 by the MDU. But he made no disclosure.

iv) The appellant had on 12 May 2017 signed replies to CPR 35.6 questions, endorsed with a statement of truth, which were completely false.

In such circumstances, in my judgment, it would have been perverse and wrong for the MPT to have decided anything other than that the appellant had an actual, serious, conflict of interest of the first type. I am satisfied, notwithstanding the presence of some linguistic confusion, that this is what the MPT decided."

 

The case and judgment is extremely interesting and I would encourage all members to take a look (see the link below).

 

This case once again highlights the risks if Experts do not follow the Rules and Regulations and particularly if they fail to disclose conflicts of interest.

 

The second has hit the headlines today. The Guardian reports that an expert witness to the Grenfell Tower public inquiry tasked with assessing how the council landlord handled fire risk is embroiled in conflict of interest claims after it emerged that his son now works for the council as its head of fire safety.

 

A spokesperson for the inquiry says that: “Colin Todd informed the inquiry of his son Keith Todd’s intention to take up employment with RBKC at an early stage. Keith Todd will not be involved in any way in advising RBKC regarding evidence it gives to the inquiry about the Grenfell Tower fire and … Colin and Keith Todd will not discuss in any way fire safety matters relating to RBKC.”

 

Whilst the conflict may have been disclosed and the conflict of interest started after his instruction, claims about the conflict of interest this will likely add controversy to the inquiry. It will be interesting to see how this plays out....

 

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.