Case Updates

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 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.

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

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 court could see no basis on which the plaintiffs could seek to rely on any agreement reached between the experts as to the underlying facts.

Nolan v Dildar Ltd (Approved) [2024] IEHC 4 

For accident reconstruction, emergency medicine and neurosurgery experts, this case illustrates the interdependence of accident reconstruction and medical evidence and the need for the medical experts to have regard to the accident reconstruction evidence.

Colizzi v Coulson [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)

The report of an expert in psychiatry was undermined by his acceptance of the appellent's account which, unbeknown to him, a previous tribunal had found to lack credibility. The court also attached less weight to the expert's assessment than it did to a hospital letter because the assessment had been conducted remotely.

Chahal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2024001451

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)

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)

This is an important case because it corrects a misunderstanding about the test for capacity. There has been an established view that the Mental Capacity Act contains a ‘belief’ requirement. That is wrong.

Hemachandran v Thirumalesh [2024] EWCA Civ 896