Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

October 10th is World Mental Health Day and in this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at the issue of wellbeing and...
Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use...
Read between the lines, judge Read between the lines, judge

Read between the lines, judge

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and...
John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70 John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on 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.

Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB)
Priya Vaidya 2493

Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB)

byPriya Vaidya

Background: Between June 2006 and March 2017 the claimant worked for a global investment banking firm, Jefferies Ltd ("Jefferies") as a research analyst in the equity market. On 19 November 2009, he was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia ("AML") In May 2015 he commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal alleging disability discrimination against Jefferies, the disability in question being AML. His claim was comprehensively dismissed. The Tribunal found that in a number of respects the claimant had not told the truth and that he had intentionally misled the Tribunal. A contested detailed costs assessment followed and those costs were the subject of this claim.

 

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.