Case Updates

Clicking on one of the topics below will display case updates relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify case updates.

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve?
Case Updates

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve?

The judge noted that the expert readily accepted that integral to his reasoning was that he did not believe the claimant as to the symptoms he had suffered and, probably, teh claimant's account of the incident. In the judge's view, it is entirely outside the remit of an expert to decide which witnesses of fact he believes or disbelieves.

Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB) 

The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work
Case Updates

The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert witness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his examination of the forensic material and closed his mind to possible or probable accidental causes for the injuries identified. 

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G [2024] EWHC 2200 (Fam) 

Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531
Case Updates

Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

This case is about whether the judge erred in finding that Ms Soophia Khan had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. This is an important judgment for any psychiatrist called upon to assess fitness to plead and stand trial in a criminal case or litigation capacity in a civil case; and important also for any psychologist whose evidence may be considered in such a case. It is not just because it compares the tests for fitness to plead and stand trial and litigation capacity; it is a rare illustration of not only how a judge at first instance assesses expert evidence in such a case but also of how the court of appeal analyses the judicial reasoning when such a case is appealed.

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. 

 

 

Litigation capacity
Case Updates

Litigation capacity

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

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. 

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)

RSS
1345678910Last