Case Updates

The claimant, who suffered brain damage at birth, relied on a report commenting on the allegation of negligence prepared by Mrs S, a midwife. The judge was concerned about the objectivity of Mrs S’s expert evidence because she was heavily involved in the business of litigation and gave evidence which he considered was uncompromisingly critical of the defendant.

The Claimants brought an action against the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Education, for negligence and misfeasance in public office, relating to the actions of the Skills Funding Agency (‘SFA’), for which the Defendant is responsible. The Claimants alleged that the acts of SFA prevented them from selling their business for around £27 million, plus a lost chance of converting around £10 million in rollover loan notes.

The Defendant issued an application to revoke the Claimants’ permission to rely upon their forensic accounting expert evidence, because it had become clear that one of the Claimants, who was a trained accountant, had had significant secret involvement in the preparation of the expert’s report and the Joint Statement.

The pursuer’s vehicle was stationary at a red light when the defender’s insured collided with him, causing soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back and shoulder. The court commended the defender's expert for changing his opinion on whether a collison had occured after he was shown additional photographs during his examination-in-chief.

This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out following a stroke. The court considered a number of relevant publications.

For experts in psychiatry and psychology, it is important as it illustrates how the court tests evidence in cases involving performance validity testing.

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB) 

The case was a claim in negligence arising out of complications following bariatric surgery. When he was asked during cross-examination to explain the Bolam test, the Claimant’s expert was not able to demonstrate an accurate understanding of, or ability to explain, the test.

One of the important differences between Ireland and other British Isles jurisdictions is in the procedures followed in personal injury litigation. This case is illustrative. If the plaintiff had brought his case in England or Wales, how would this case have progressed?

Keogh v O'Keeffe [2025] IEHC 26

The Claimant alleged that an accident five years earlier was the cause of the amputation of his lower leg. The judge criticised the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert, Professor H, for demonstrating at times a rather ‘loose approach’ to his expert evidence and a closed mindedness towards his evidence.

The Claimant’s father and litigation friend alleged that the medical practitioners treating his son were negligent in not promptly carrying out an ultrasound on his head, after he had been admitted to hospital with head injuries. The judge found that the expert for the Claimant was, to an extent, seeking to fight his corner rather than taking a dispassionate approach to the issues raised.

The Claimants alleged that dust, noise and odour emitted by the defendant’s factory over a prolonged period constituted a legal nuisance. The judge was critical of the Claimants’ experts for departing from the initial common approach when the initial results had been adverse to their clients’ case.

There are some general learning points for all experts but otherwise this is for neurosurgeons. It is another road traffic accident personal injury case in which the court needed the assistance of neurosurgeons, or at least it would have done but for the fact that it made a finding which made it unnecessary to consider the neurosurgical evidence before reaching a judgment. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant were not in dispute. What was in dispute, but ultimately irrelevant, was what the child’s injuries would have been if the driver of the vehicle had been driving (non-negligently) at a lower speed than he was. It was on this point that the neurosurgical experts disagreed.

MW v Wilkinson [2025] EWHC 2300 (KB)