Login Join Us
A court cannot ignore an unchallenged expert report A court cannot ignore an unchallenged expert report

A court cannot ignore an unchallenged expert report

The High Court found that the Crown Court was bound to accept an uncontested expert report if it did not have a valid reasons for departing from the...
Expert Witness Survey - Equal Representation Expert Witness Survey - Equal Representation

Expert Witness Survey - Equal Representation

Take 5 minutes to help monitor progress
Appeal in the Cause Michael Marshall against Berkshire Hathaway International Insurance... Appeal in the Cause Michael Marshall against Berkshire Hathaway International Insurance...

Appeal in the Cause Michael Marshall against Berkshire Hathaway International Insurance...

The sheriff appeal court upheld the sheriff's award of damages for injuries sustained in a vehicle accident which were assessed, in the...
A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and... A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

EWI Honorary Fellow Tony Saggers has been a drug trafficking Expert Witness since 1995, alongside a career in law enforcement that spanned 30 years....
Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

The Forensic Science Regulator is consulting on the draft for the development of version 2 of the forensic science code of practice.

News

LK [2020] CSIH 40, 2020 WL 03841232
Priya Vaidya
/ Categories: Case Updates

LK [2020] CSIH 40, 2020 WL 03841232

Topics:            Experience

                        Conflict of interest

                        Impartiality

 

Nature of case: Appeal against a determination of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

 

The case: The NMC called as an expert witness Ms 2. It was objected that (1) she lacked knowledge and understanding of the day to day demands on a practising midwife. Her understanding "may be out of date" since she accepted, for example, that it had been some time since she herself had delivered a baby and (2) that "[she] pursued an investigative and prosecutorial role against the [appellant]. This was her role through the NHS Tayside Disciplinary process. She had come to a concluded view before the current procedure was begun. She is entirely partial as a result .., and any opinions she provides are necessarily biased and stem from an Investigatory process I say was flawed."

 

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

Already a member? Login

Previous Article Engie Fabricom (UK) Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC), 2020 WL 03475564
Next Article Change to the Statement of Truth in Civil Proceedings from 1st October 2020
Print
573
Comments are only visible to subscribers.