Expert Matters - The Podcast

Each month, CEO of EWI, Simon Berney-Edwards, and Policy Manger, Sean Mosby, will take an informed look at developments in the world of expert witnesses and expert evidence. There will also be updates on what's happening at EWI, as well as longer form content including interviews and in-depth discussion of key issues for the expert witness community.

 

Clicking on one of the topics below will display episodes with content relevant to that topic.

 

Did you know you can get CPD hours for listening to our Podcast?

Anyone who is a registered user on our website can record their time listening to the Podcast in their CPD Log by visiting their My EWI.

Record my CPD

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)
Case Updates

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding that the primary duty of an expert witness is not to say anything that may damage the instructing party’s case if it can be avoided.

How not to use AI in expert evidence
Case Updates

How not to use AI in expert evidence

In this US case, an expert in fiduciary services used Microsoft’s Copilot to cross-check calculations he used in expert evidence. He was unable to recall the prompts he used, state the sources Copilot relied on, or explain how the tool worked and arrived at its outputs. The judge provided some useful insight into the challenges with using AI in expert evidence. 

 

 

Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB)
Case Updates

Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB)

The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.

Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC)
Case Updates

Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC)

The judge found that it was without justification and entirely unecessary for an expert to question the opposing expert's professionalism and motives in selecting evidence, noting that this approach was unhelpful for the tribunal. 

The Single Biggest Change White Paper
News

The Single Biggest Change White Paper

Earlier this year, we asked our members about the single biggest change they’ve seen since they started practicing as an Expert Witness. With members from numerous disciplines who’ve been practicing from 40 years to 4 months, we expected a wide variety of insights, and we weren’t disappointed.

Cardiotocograph – normal or abnormal
Case Updates

Cardiotocograph – normal or abnormal

This case is primarily of interest to obstetricians, illustrating the court’s approach to the disputed interpretation of cardiotocographic evidence. There were no midwifery issues as such, but it may be of some interest to midwifery experts. The general learning points speak for themselves without reading the summary.

Woods v Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 1432 (KB)

Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis
Case Updates

Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis

The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth. There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just jointly appointed experts in the Family Court.

Re M (A Child) (Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas) [2024] EWFC 209 (B)

When is a summary not a summary?
Case Updates

When is a summary not a summary?

The experts in this case appear to have set out a joint statement in the form of a Scott schedule. Unfortunately one of the experts used his column to set out lengthy texts and seemingly seeking to use the statement as a Trojan horse by which to introduce evidence that the court has excluded.

Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd & Anor v Ruhan & Anor [2024] EWHC 1263 (Comm) 

123456