In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports, including addenda and other admissible communications. The fundamental disagreement was the diagnosis: PTSD or adjustment disorder. It appears that four of the reports by the defendant’s expert were in rebuttal of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert. This summary does not reflect the considerable extent to which the court had to analyse the evidence as to diagnosis. In the court’s judgment diagnosis hardly mattered. The judge said that more important, in his view, was the impact that the condition had on the plaintiff’s everyday functioning and lifestyle. Then when awarding damages, he said that the psychiatric damage suffered by the plaintiff attributable to the accident could be described as moderately severe whether that be under a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychiatric damage generally. 

A common issue in personal injury orthopaedic cases is whether the damage of which the claimant complains is degenerative or traumatic in origin or a combination. This case illustrates for specialists in neurosurgery, orthopaedics, pain medicine and radiology how the court resolved conflicting expert evidence. It also illustrates the risks of reliance on the claimant’s self-reported history, especially if they have taken it upon themselves to research into areas of medical and legal expertise.

Rezmuves v Birney [2024] IEHC 592 

Any uncertainty as to whether a psychiatrist can provide an expert report as a paper-based assessment is answered by this case.

In this case the paper-based assessment was sufficient for the court to conclude that, having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, s 48, there were "reasons to believe that the Appellant lacks capacity". However, the fact that the court did not make a finding of a lack of capacity and transferred the case to a Tier 3 (High Court) Judge of the Court of Protection in order to determine the matter of capacity indicates how the court recognises how much more difficult it is to make a finding when the report relies on a paper-based assessment compared to a consultation with the subject of the report.   

MacPherson v Sunderland City Council (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 1579 

The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance.

Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)

Although accepting the medical expert's conclusion on the First Defendant's capacity to appear in court, the Bailiff noted that any further application for an adjournment on health grounds would require a much more significant explanation of the First Defendant's medical history, and precise problems and prognosis, to be provided well in advance.

Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi and Ors [2024] JRC 086

The claimants mounted an attack in cross-examination on the expertise and competence of an expert in Old Age Psychiatry. 

A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest.

An expert opinion must be supported by reasoning and correctly apply the relevant legal tests. 

The report of the psychiatrist expert witness strayed outside his expertise. It did not show any clear independent knowledge, demonstrate that that he was a country expert, or provide supporting source material.

The case of Valdo Calocane, convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter, has brought to the public’s attention the role of expert psychiatric witnesses in cases of alleged murder. The case raises a number of issues about the role of expert witnesses in criminal proceedings, mental condition defences and the meaning of public interest.