This is an important case for three reasons.

First, it found that a general practitioner, giving evidence about the depressive disorder diagnosed in primary care, was giving expert evidence. Second, it illustrates the difficulties for courts and tribunals arising from the looseness with which some medical professionals, and most laypeople, use such terms as "depression" ("clinical" or otherwise), "anxiety" and "stress" and to which list can be added, also for the benefit of surgeons, “shock”. Third, it is a good illustration of the approach likely to be taken in an Employment Tribunal disability case.

J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] UKEAT 0263 09 1506

In this case the issue was the extent or degree of the deterioration, its real world impact in terms of effect on daily life and ability to cope and the mitigating effects of help and treatment. 

Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2024000275 

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational decision" to end his life can be construed as satisfying Turner proposition 4. It makes clear that Turner proposition (4) is not directed at the general background or lead-up to a suicide attempt but is focused on the moment in time when suicide is attempted.

Hebda v District Court in Krakow, Poland [2025] EWHC 860 (Admin)

This case is a useful reminder about the meaning of disability in the Equality Act and the matters that expert evidence must address. 

Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION) [2025] EAT 82) 

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.