Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB) Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s...
Extradition and suicide risk Extradition and suicide risk

Extradition and suicide risk

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational...
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a new consolidation of the Criminal Procedure Rules and an accompanying guide. The new Rules will...
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...
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...
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.

Non-freezing cold injury
Keith Rix 936

Non-freezing cold injury

byKeith Rix

 

Commentary

This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The parties had been assisted by generic experts who were then called as experts in this case. Each was cross-examined on the basis that they displayed a lack of impartiality. But the court was satisfied that each of them understood their duty under Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sought to comply with it. Given that each had provided generic evidence for one side or the other, the court did not find it surprising that they had continued to be instructed. In itself, that did not prevent them giving objective evidence.

The case illustrates the challenges for experts when the clinical condition in issue is rarely encountered (or at least rarely recognised) in normal NHS practice. It most commonly arises in military personnel. Furthermore, there has been limited high quality, peer-reviewed research in the area of NFCI. Understanding of the condition continues to evolve. The pool of those with expertise in the condition is relatively small. The precise mechanism of injury is not currently known to medical science. Neither of the lead experts had military experience. One was challenged over his lack of clinical experience of NFCI and the other had seen only a few patients with NFCI outside medicolegal reporting. Nevertheless, both were able to assist the court. Significantly, it was apparent that both had kept themselves informed about developments in the field

In many cases where there is conflicting expert evidence, the court has to rely on an impressionistic view that one expert is generally to be preferred to the other and where one expert has been criticised this may be taken into account. However, in this case, notwithstanding the criticisms she made of one of the experts, the court was able to set aside those criticisms and base her judgment on a careful analysis of how the expert opinions fitted with the other evidence in the case.

The detail of this judgment may be of interest only to neurologists and vascular surgeons but makes useful reading for any expert instructed in a case where non-freezing cold injury is in issue. 

What the judgment does not reveal is that the claimant failed to beat the defendant’s Part 36 offer and that there had also been a failed joint settlement meeting in the case.

Learning points:

General

  • Although findings of fact are for the court and not for the experts, the court expects experts to take on board what they hear in evidence and to think about whether that alters their opinion in any material way. The main point of an expert medical witness being present while a claimant gives evidence is so that they have heard that evidence first hand and can weigh it in giving their opinion evidence.

  • Look carefully not only at the claimant's evidence but also at the histories underpinning the other experts’ opinions and cross-reference contemporaneous records. Reflect sufficiently on any inconsistencies between the history you have obtained and other sources of evidence including the evidence heard at trial.

  • Even expert witnesses may find the experience of being cross-examined challenging and different people react in different ways to that.

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.