Case Updates

The court noted that the jointly instructed expert demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both CPR 35 and the duties owed to the court by an expert in allowing someone else in this firm to answer CPR 35 questions on his behalf. His report was also entirely equivocal on the key issues and therefore offered little or no assistance to the court.

Kate Rodgers v Laural Brookes [2025] EWCC 31

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)

After considering the report from the Single Joint Expert, the Wife in financial remedy proceedings attempted unsuccessfully to make a Daniels v Walker application to adduce evidence from her solely instructed expert. The judge set out the law on Daniels v Walker before applying it to the specifics of the case. 

When an SJE has been appointed, but one of the parties wishes to rely on their own evidence, the court should follow the staggered approach recommended by Lord Woolf in Daniels v. Walker.

John Seneschall v Trisant Foods Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1380 (Ch)

An expert report did not address all of the questions posed in the letter of instruction, reformulated other questions, and failed to comply with FPR Part 25 in a number of important ways, while the expert witness's oral evidence failed to provide an impartial expert view. 

The judge considered, but did not reach a conclusion on, whether a party's communications with their expert before a joint meeting of experts should be disclosed. 

A Single Joint Expert caused difficulties by an unwise pre-hearing exchange with one of the parties in the absence of the other party, and legal representatives.

In BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11, Mr Justice Peel concludes that the direction of a Single Joint Expert is the default position in the Family Court and there is a high bar to persuade the court to give permission for two or more experts to be solely instructed.