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...
Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025 Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025

Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025

Resolve and EWI held our annual Scottish Medicolegal Conference at the Grand Central Hotel in Glasgow on 19 September. The event featured great...
Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV

Your expert witness CV is not the same as a professional CV

Top tips and new support available to ensure you remain complaint and provide a good quality CV.
A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

Dr Richard Taylor is an Expert in the identification, verification and valuation of diamonds, gemstones, jewellery, watches, silver and antiques. He...
Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing

Podcast Episode 16: CV Writing

In the 16th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and Sean, discuss CV Writing. We look at the purpose of expert CVs, the rules and...
The Medical Expert in Court The Medical Expert in Court

The Medical Expert in Court

Fans of true crime and anyone involved in giving expert evidence might be interested in a recent podcast episode from EWI Fellow, Dr Harry Brunjes.
Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness... Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

In the 15th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkis, discuss the power of EWI membership and the...
A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

Marisa Shek is a Healthcare Architect and owner of Shek Architects. As an Expert Witness, she specialises in the field of accommodation for disabled...
A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

Susan Jones, founder of SJ Consultancy, has been a town planning consultant for over 40 years. As an Expert Witness, she provides evidence at public...

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.

Volte-face: When an expert changes their mind in the witness box
Emma Mitra 2208

Volte-face: When an expert changes their mind in the witness box

byEmma Mitra

In February, a sporting injuries case made headlines for being amongst the first of its kind to award damages on the grounds of negligence. A deciding factor in the judgement was down to the change in direction by the defendant’s expert. The presiding judge and EWI Chair, Sir Martin Spencer, told us more about the case — and explains why experts shouldn’t be afraid to change tack.

 

The case

Dani Czernuska, the claimant, was playing her first competitive game of rugby when she was heavily tackled by Natasha King, the defendant. As a result, Czernuska sustained a spinal cord injury that left her paraplegic, needing to use a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

 

“Generally speaking, injuries in rugby are an accepted risk of taking part in the game”, presiding judge Sir Martin Spencer told us. “But Czernuska argued that the tackle by King was illegal, inappropriate, and beyond the normal risk of the game.”

 

For the defendant to be found liable, the court needed to establish that she was reckless or exhibited a very high degree of carelessness – and, depending on the court's findings in relation to the first issue, whether the tackle met this test, too.

 

And that, of course, is where Expert Witnesses came in.

 

The experts

The expert evidence focussed on whether, within the laws of rugby, the defendant was offside; whether the claimant had possession of the ball; whether it was legitimate for the defendant to tackle the claimant; and how the defendant executed her tackle.

 

Both the claimant’s and the defendant’s experts were renowned, experienced and accomplished referees. But in their reports, they took very different views.

 

Edward Morrison, the claimant’s expert, said in his report: “These actions are not those of a responsible rugby player. In my opinion, it was a reckless and dangerous act and fell below an acceptable standard of fair play."

 

Meanwhile, the defendant’s expert, Anthony Spreadbury, said in his report: “Natasha King was not off-side, nor did she commit any act of foul or dangerous play in accordance with the Laws of the Game. […] Natasha King executes a legal tackle correctly.”

 

Conceding the case

It was under cross-examination that Mr Spreadbury changed his opinion, and came much closer to that of Mr Morrison’s. During the trial, he made a total of eight concessions, including that the claimant was vulnerable because of her position and also because of her size and stature compared to the defendant.

 

Mr Spreadbury also conceded that he would not want to see a tackle of that kind on any rugby pitch, and he’d only seen two such tackles in the whole of his career, calling it “the very epitome of dangerous tackling.”

 

“Those concessions totally changed the perception of the expert evidence”, explained Sir Martin. “It was, as we say in the legal world, a volte-face, or about-face.”

 

In his judgement, Sir Martin noted that: “Two of the essential struts to the Defendant's case had, by the end of Mr Spreadbury's evidence, gone: the Claimant was not in possession of the ball and so should not have been tackled at all; and the mechanics of the tackle itself were dangerous and liable to give rise to serious injury whereby such a tackle had no place on the rugby field. This meant that, if the Defendant's defence to this claim were to survive, it would have to be put forward on a very different basis.”

 

A learning experience

It’s impossible to say for sure why Mr Spreadbury made those concessions. The experts’ different viewpoints clearly weren’t resolved at the joint meeting. “It took the court case and the discipline of the court to bring them closer together”, said Sir Martin. “Sometimes, experts see things in the course of a trial.”

 

Sir Martin praised the skilful cross-examination and also pointed out that both experts were exploring new ground.

 

“The number of cases that go to trial and involve forensic examination is uncommon, particularly in the field of sport”, Sir Martin explained. “This was the first time both experts had given evidence in court and the first time being cross examined in a court of law. It would have been a learning experience for both of them.”

 

A dynamic process

Sir Martin emphasised that experts shouldn’t be afraid to concede at any point during a trial. “The fact Mr Spreadbury made [the concessions] speaks very highly of him, because they were the right concessions to make”, he said. “He hadn’t closed his mind – he’d left it open. Should the evidence have led him there in the first place? Arguably yes. But it’s sometimes difficult for experts to see the whole picture.”

 

“The giving of expert evidence is a dynamic process”, Sir Martin continued. “They have to be reactive to the evidence they’re hearing and the arguments put forward. They have to be ready to adjust their opinions accordingly. This was a very dramatic example of that.”

 

His advice for other experts about conceding their position? “Never let your integrity be compromised by a misplaced loyalty to the client. I wouldn’t try to dissuade anyone from instructing Mr Spreadbury again. He understood his duty to the court as an independent expert witness.”

 

Setting a new precedent?

The claimant’s legal team was quoted as saying: “The outcome sets a legal precedent for future sporting injury claims involving spinal cord injuries and we hope that Mrs Czernuska’s case goes a long way to raise awareness of the dangers involved with foul play on the sporting field.”

 

But Sir Martin is cautious when it comes to speculating on whether we can expect more cases in the future which consider whether players are taken to court for negligent behaviour.

 

“I think possibly, if I had found against the claimant, it would have stopped such claims in their tracks”, he acknowledged. “Each of these cases is different. To draw parallels between different cases is very, very difficult. Any caution people have had in the past about bringing such cases forward is very appropriate.”

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.