Review of Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims Review of Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims

Review of Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims

The Civil Justice Council (‘CJC’) is intending to review its ‘Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims’ with a...
Update on EWI Advocacy Update on EWI Advocacy

Update on EWI Advocacy

One of the key roles of the Expert Witness Institute (‘EWI’) is to ensure that policy, rule and regulatory changes are informed by the...
Legal Aid: Experts' Fees Legal Aid: Experts' Fees

Legal Aid: Experts' Fees

This case is of obvious importance to experts authorised by the Family Court to be instructed in public law proceedings but it has implications for...
EWI Annual Conference 2025: Opening keynote looks at how to be a witness as well as an... EWI Annual Conference 2025: Opening keynote looks at how to be a witness as well as an...

EWI Annual Conference 2025: Opening keynote looks at how to be a witness as well as an...

The diagnosis hang-up and cardiological manifestations of PTSD The diagnosis hang-up and cardiological manifestations of PTSD

The diagnosis hang-up and cardiological manifestations of PTSD

In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports,...
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...
Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related...
A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert

A Day in the Life of an Aerial Imagery Expert

Chris Cox is a professional heritage consultant, specialist interpreter of aerial imagery and Lidar data, and an Expert Witness. She is the...

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 817

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.