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.

How should Experts disclose criticisms when they are frequently unaware of the outcome of the case?
Simon Berney-Edwards 1153

How should Experts disclose criticisms when they are frequently unaware of the outcome of the case?

bySimon Berney-Edwards

 

 

The judgement from The Honourable Mr Justice Trower in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors presents a number of interesting learning points for Expert Witnesses. But we have been particularly struck by the assertion that Expert Witnesses have a duty to disclose previous criticisms of their evidence in judgments.

 

What the judge said

“In two previous cases, Pindell Limited v. Airasia Berhad [2010] EWHC 2516 (Comm) and ACG Acquisition XX LLC v. Olympic Airlines [2012] EWHC 1070 (Comm), Mr S's evidence had not been accepted by judges of the Commercial Court.  In the second of those cases, ACG (at para 50), Teare J had held that Mr S had not given sufficient consideration to his duty to the court not to omit matters which might detract from his stated opinion, having regard to some of the findings made by Tomlinson J in Pindell.  The consequence of this in ACG was that Teare J was unable to rely on his evidence, save when accepted by the other expert.

These criticisms took on a further level of significance in light of the judgment in Peregrine Aviation v. Laudamotion [2023] EWHC 48 (Comm) at [22], in which it was noted by Henshaw J that "Mr S ought to have disclosed criticisms of his evidence in two previous judgments as part of or in conjunction with his expert report in that case".  Henshaw J's judgment was handed down on 17 January 2023 but, despite this timely reminder of his duties, it was only six months later, a mere three days before his cross-examination in these proceedings, that Mr Kolomoisky's solicitors disclosed to the Bank's solicitors what had been said.  In cross-examination, Mr S said that he thought he had forwarded what had been said in Peregrine to the lawyers at an earlier stage.  I have no means of knowing whether he did in fact do so, but I consider that he should have ensured that this information was made available to the Bank and the court much earlier than he did.  In that respect he was in breach of his own personal duty to the court.  This failing made an evaluation of the credibility of his evidence a more difficult task than would otherwise have been the case.”

 

Fair assertion?

Most experts will tell you that they are frequently unaware of the outcome of cases, let alone being sent copies of judgments that they have been mentioned in. This problem pervades the justice system and even extends to the Family Courts where there is a specific requirement for the Instructing Party to “send to the expert a copy of the court’s final order, any transcript or written record of the court’s decision, and its reasons for reaching its decision, within 10 business days from the date when the party received the order and any such transcript or record.” (Family Procedure Rules Part 25.19)

The Criminal Courts are at least a little kinder.  The Criminal Procedure Rules r 19.2(3) refer to the expert’s duty to "disclose to the party for whom the expert’s evidence is commissioned anything of which the expert is aware."

But it seems somewhat unfair to say that Expert Witnesses have a duty to share this criticism since this is infrequently shared with them.

 

If you are aware of criticism

Of course, if you are aware of any criticism you would be wise to make your Instructing Party aware of it. The last thing you want is for your credibility to be attacked by opposing counsel who have researched previous cases in which you have been mentioned.

 

The good news?

Just because you were criticised before, it doesn’t mean that you cannot redeem yourself. In considering another expert’s evidence, the judge wrote:

“In a judgment I gave in unrelated litigation (Bank St Petersburg OJSC v. Arkhangelsky [2022] EWHC 2499 (Ch) at [472]), I had criticised the quality of Mr Thomas' evidence as betraying a marked failure to recognise that his role was to assist the court by an independent and dispassionate statement of his views without descending into the arena to argue the counterclaimants' case on their behalf.   Not surprisingly, he was taxed with this in cross-examination and accepted that the criticisms I had made of his evidence in that case were fair.  However, his evidence in these proceedings was in marked contrast to his evidence in the Bank St Petersburg case.  While he was firm in the views that he expressed, he did not cross the line into advocacy and explained the concepts on which he relied with clarity.  He was confident in his opinions, and justifiably so.  My overall impression was not just that he knew what he was talking about, but also that he addressed the issues with which he had been asked to deal in a fair and balanced manner.”

 

Learning points

So the key learning points are:

  • Do ask your Instructing Party for feedback and to send you a copy of any judgment, particularly if you gave evidence in a court/tribunal.
  • If you are aware of any previous criticism, you should declare this to any Instructing Party.
  • If you have been the subject of criticism, take the time to reflect on the criticism and consider how you might amend your practice. Undertake further training where necessary.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.