15 January 2025 Sean Mosby 2932 Podcast Podcast Episode 8: Re-evaluating your opinion bySean Mosby In the 8th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss re-evaluating your opinion. We look at possible reasons why you might wish to re-evaluate your opinion and the stages in the proceedings where re-evaluation is most likely to occur, before hearing from three senior judges on how re-evaluating your opinion can sometimes be positive for your expert evidence, but may also be disastrous. You can listen to Episode 8 of the Expert Matters Podcast on a number of podcast apps, including spotify and apple podcasts. If you can't find the podcast on your favourite app, let us know at expertmatters@ewi.org.uk. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction 01:23 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G 03:36 Wilson v the Ministry of Justice 04:45 Possible reasons for re-evaluating your opinion 06:16 Key stages for re-evaluating your opinion 08:07 Mr Abeezar Sarela 09:52 Sir Martin Spencer 12:09 Lord Justice Hamblen 13:18 Lady Justice Simler 14:41 Conclusion The resources we mention in this episode are: EWI in Conversation with Sir Martin Spencer Lady Justice Simler's Keynote Address, EWI Annual Conference 2023 Lord Justice Hamblem's Keynote Address, EWI Annual Conference 2022 The judgments we mention in this episode are: London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G [2024] EWHC 2200 (Fam) Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) Some other recent judgments on changing your opinion are: Alan Prescott-Brann v Chelsea and Westminster’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2024] EWHC 3314 (KB) Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Rebecca Thorp & Ors v Dr Harinder Mehta [2024] EWHC 652 (KB) Balachandra v The General Dental Council [2024] EWHC 18 (Admin) (10 January 2024) We would appreciate your feedback including improvements and ideas for content you would like us to include at expertmatters@ewi.org.uk. More links Link to the Podcast on Spotify Link to the Podcast on Apple Podcasts Share Print Tags 06. Rules and Regulations11. Report Writing14. Changing your opinion08. Working with Instructing Parties12. Responding to questions13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements15. Giving Oral Evidence Related articles Read between the lines, judge John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70 Aspirin and haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome Dating non-accidental injuries Is bite mark evidence admissible? Switch article Justice for people with a hearing impairment Previous Article Government Response on Revisions to the Medical Reporting Process for Road Traffic Accident Claims Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.