Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions

Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions

In January's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss responding to written questions. We look at the rules and regulations, discuss a...
LMN v Swansea Bay University Health Board [2025] EWHC 3402 (KB) LMN v Swansea Bay University Health Board [2025] EWHC 3402 (KB)

LMN v Swansea Bay University Health Board [2025] EWHC 3402 (KB)

The claimant, who suffered brain damage at birth, relied on a report commenting on the allegation of negligence prepared by Mrs S, a midwife. The...
The first-time expert The first-time expert

The first-time expert

The details of this case are for gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. The learning points are of general application and although made by an expert...
Amr Danyall Marshal & Ors v Awais Javed & Ors [2025] EWHC 3195 (Ch) Amr Danyall Marshal & Ors v Awais Javed & Ors [2025] EWHC 3195 (Ch)

Amr Danyall Marshal & Ors v Awais Javed & Ors [2025] EWHC 3195 (Ch)

The judge found that the report by the claimants’ forensic accounting expert was not expert evidence because it simply reported what the...
Review of 2025 Review of 2025

Review of 2025

EWI Chief Executive Officer, Simon Berney-Edwards, shares his thoughts on 2025, a year where Expert Witnesses have continued to come under increasing...
The Isolation of Experts The Isolation of Experts

The Isolation of Experts

In this article, Dr Kay Linnell OBE talks about the role of the expert witness, and the problems that can be encountered when Instructing Parties go...
Competition Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction on Expert Evidence Competition Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction on Expert Evidence

Competition Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction on Expert Evidence

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has published a Practice Direction on expert evidence. The Practice Direction sets out the principles applicable to...
Podcast Episode 20: Review of 2025 Podcast Episode 20: Review of 2025

Podcast Episode 20: Review of 2025

Join us for the last podcast of 2025! With some festive cheer, we review 2025, with the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over...
A Day in the Life of an Orthopaedic Spinal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of an Orthopaedic Spinal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of an Orthopaedic Spinal Expert Witness

Mr Niall Craig is a Consultant Orthopaedic Spinal Surgeon and Expert Witness specialising in complex spinal cases. He tells us about his professional...
Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice

Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice

In this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we explore recent developments in Transparency and Open Justice. You can also catch our...
A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness

Vanessa Jane Davies is the founder of Skin Camouflage Services, an independent expert practice offering paramedical skin camouflage, non-invasive scar...
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

We speak to a consultant Speech and Language Therapist providing assessments for Special Educational Need (SEND) tribunals and writing medicolegal...

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.

Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)
Priya Vaidya 3003

Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)

byPriya Vaidya

Nature of case: This was a case of a gastrointestinal illness suffered on holiday and one in which the evidence of an expert witness, Professor Hugh Pennington, was the only expert evidence that had been admitted. As his evidence was not controverted, the judge relied on it. The case was put on the basis that Professor Pennington’s report was bare ipse dixit or otherwise so deficient as to have entitled the court to reject it. The issue for the court was the proper approach of a court towards expert evidence which is “uncontroverted” and the court found that the judge was not entitled to reject the report because of its perceived deficiencies

 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.