Case Updates

The claimant alleged that the vibrating tools he used while employed by the defendant caused Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. The judge criticised one of the medical experts for looking for answers that supported his strong views on the subject, rather than obtaining a reliable history from the claimant.

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in general as well as orthopaedic experts. It sets out the law on consent as established in not only Montgomery but also in McCullough. It touches on orthopaedic experts giving evidence in cases outside their own subspecialty.

Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)

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

This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn.   

The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved.  The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated.  This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.

The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors.  Both sides approached their instructions to their expert from different angles which caused difficulties at trial.  This explained why the valuations were worlds apart (or as the judge commented they had a “manifestly excessive difference”) and needed some careful scrutiny and assessment by the judge. Whilst the approach of examining both valuations is very case specific, there are some fundamental tests which can be taken away.  An objective test was used several times as a benchmark looking at the scope of works that a ‘reasonable owner’ or ‘purchaser’ would require.  The key legal issue of “proportionality” was also visited frequently throughout the assessment of valuations. 

Iya Patarkatsishvili & Anor v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)

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.

The claimants objected to the wording of a question for the expert witnesses in marine engineering because it invited the experts to express an opinion on a matter of fact which is ultimately for the court.

This case concerns three important issues in personal injury litigation in Northern Ireland: the extent of the plaintiff’s medical records to which an expert can have access; what the expert can ask about how the injury was sustained; and whether a plaintiff can refuse to be assessed by a particular expert.   

In the circumstances of the case, including the absence of a timely challenge to lack of form, the judge gave due weight to an expert report and the answers to questions without subtraction for lack of compliance with CPR 35 and rule 3 of the Practice Directions.

The medico-legal expert in this personal injury claim was urged by the judge to seek further training after he made all of the three most common compliance errors which the EWI sees in expert reports.

Hamed v. Ministry of Justice (County Court in Cambridge – 7th June 2024)