Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key...
A fundamentally flawed report A fundamentally flawed report

A fundamentally flawed report

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist...
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...
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)...

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.

Legal teams need to observe  Expert’s fatigue & concentration
Kim Highley 730

Legal teams need to observe Expert’s fatigue & concentration

byKim Highley

 

Summary

This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn.   

The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved.  The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated.  This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.

Learning points for experts

  • Experts owe a duty to the court whilst been cross-examined.

  • Giving expert evidence can be a tiring process and this is something to bear in mind and express concern as necessary.

  • If as an expert you believe you have given incorrect answers in cross-examination, then you should have the opportunity to correct it, but you should not abuse this opportunity and give 'replacement answers'.

  • When working with an instructing party, be clear what you can recall from memory and what you can report on with reference to sources (e.g. textbooks).

Learning points for instructing parties

  • Don’t leave the Judge to disseminate lever arch files full of scientific materials.

  • Aim to address matters succinctly and use the right approach to expert’s written evidence.  This will avoid the need to remedy unclear points in cross-examination.

  • Use the time for cross-examination wisely so not to cause the expert to become over tired and lose concentration.

  • Consider the timetable for the day at trial. When are the breaks likely to take place?

  • Legal teams should carefully observe their witnesses and speak up at trial if they detect that an expert witness is becoming tired during cross-examination.

  • When preparing an expert’s report consider what the expert can accurately recall from memory.  Will extracts of the report cause suspicion if not backed up with references? Such references can be to textbooks for example.

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.