3 September Case Updates Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd v Resham Ltd [2024] EWCC 4 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints The judge noted that that the manner in which two Expert Witnesses in Chartered Surveying gave their evidence was more advocacy than opinion, with one expert’s report reading more like a skeleton argument.
29 August Case Updates Haywood v Ritchie & Ors (t/a as H Ritchie & Sons) [2005] NIQB 42 Personal injury, Medical expert, 05. Rules and Regulations, 11. Responding to questions, Northern Ireland 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.
27 August Case Updates Jonathan Ewan Marcus v Edward Quintin Marcus [2024] EWHC 2086 (Ch) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 11. Responding to questions, 15. Criticism and Complaints 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.
22 August Case Updates Director of Public Prosecutions v BB (Approved) [2024] IECA 155 Ireland, Psychologist This Irish case is primarily of interest to psychologists and others concerned about courts’ reliance on evidence from psychologists who are not registered with an appropriate regulator and not clinically trained. The points of general application concern the high threshold to be reached in order to admit as expert evidence the evidence that comes from a body of knowledge that is not widely recognised.
20 August Case Updates Kirk v Culina Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 1431 (KB) 10. Report Writing, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Accident and Emergency The court considered that there was some substance to the criticisms of an accident and emergency expert for not dealing with matters in his primary report which he then agreed in the joint report with the opposing expert (who had included the issues in his primary report). These were however criticisms for failing to deal with points, rather than criticisms of the opinions he actually expressed in his primary report.
15 August Case Updates Charles Steven Bond & Anor v Denise May Webster & Ors [2024] EWHC 1972 (Ch) Psychiatry, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints The claimants mounted an attack in cross-examination on the expertise and competence of an expert in Old Age Psychiatry.
12 August Case Updates Should anyone else be present at the consultation? Remote assessments, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits This is an important judgment that sets out the position taken by the courts as to the presence of another person during an expert assessment. Belkovic v DSG International Plc [2014] NIQB 25
9 August Case Updates Deborah Biggadike v Kamilia El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688 (KB) Independence, Duty of Expert, 05. Rules and Regulations The judge found that it was entirely artificial to think that sharing a platform speaking at a seminar during (in the case of one expert) or before (in the case of the other) giving evidence would have any effect or impact on the evidence of two expert witnesses in urogynaecology.
7 August Case Updates When judicial criticism is unjustified Psychology, Autism, 15. Criticism and Complaints So many of the judgments summarised in this compendium are ones in which experts are criticised and there are lessons to be learned. What this judgment makes clear is that the first instance judge was wrong to have criticised Dr Matthews ("a very experienced child psychologist"). Yes, experts sometimes get it wrong and judicial criticism is justified. But judges can also get it wrong, in this case in their criticism of an expert. PP v JP & Ors [2024] EWHC 1697 (Fam)
30 July Case Updates JJMC v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2022005862 Immigration and asylum, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 01. Starting your Expert Witness Business, CV In this appeal of an asylum decision, the court was unable to discern sustainable and tolerably clear reasons as to why the judge rejected the expertise of the expert witness and his expert opinion provided in his report.