Case Updates

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant acted negligently in obtaining her consent for laser eye surgery including failing to adequately investigate her ophthalmic condition prior to the surgery.

The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance.

Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)

In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of errors in the collection, examination and interpretation of the DNA expert evidence used in the trial.

Julian Washington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda) [2024] UKPC 34

This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The case illustrates the challenges for experts when the clinical condition in issue is rarely encountered (or at least rarely recognised) in normal NHS practice. The detail of this judgment may be of interest only to neurologists and vascular surgeons but makes useful reading for any expert instructed in a case where non-freezing cold injury is in issue. 

Fraser v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 2977 (KB)

This case concerns an important boundary matter that sometimes arises for orthopaedic experts in relation to biomechanics and ergonomics. These are areas of expertise for which the orthopaedic surgeon’s ‘working knowledge’ may be sufficient, thereby avoiding the time and expense of instructing a further expert just as in cases where knowledge and experience of orthopaedics in general is sufficient and it is not necessary to instruct an orthopaedic sub-specialist.

Swierzko v Mathiesons Bakery Ltd [2024] SC EDIN 43

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 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.

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.

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. 

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)