Case Updates

The claimants, who claimed to have suffered personal injury caused by contaminants in a housing development, relied on the evidence of Professor T. The court found that Professor T did not provide any medically reasoned justification which would allow the court to make findings supporting his conclusions and did not explain in detail how he was able to reach his view on causation. The detail of this judgment is important for toxicology experts. It may be useful for medical experts as an example of the courts’ approach to causation.

Pelosi v Lanarkshire Housing Association Ltd [2024] ScotCS CSOH 56

This summary, and the learning points it sets out, will be of interest to any healthcare provider. It deal with psychiatrists and psychologists preparing reports where PTSD may be relevant when considering the state of mind at the time of an alleged offence, particularly an offence of violence. 

R v Mazzer [2024] EWCA Crim 557

This successful appeal against a Family Court judgment which led to the removal of two children from the care of their parents turned primarily on the fact that the judge was found to have acted as her own expert and conducted her own analysis of the medical research material making findings that were not supported by evidence. For paediatricians, radiologists, neurosurgeons and ophthalmologists this is highly recommend reading about the courts’ analysis of expert evidence relating to abusive head trauma and low level falls.    

A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest.

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)

After considering the report from the Single Joint Expert, the Wife in financial remedy proceedings attempted unsuccessfully to make a Daniels v Walker application to adduce evidence from her solely instructed expert. The judge set out the law on Daniels v Walker before applying it to the specifics of the case. 

When an SJE has been appointed, but one of the parties wishes to rely on their own evidence, the court should follow the staggered approach recommended by Lord Woolf in Daniels v. Walker.

John Seneschall v Trisant Foods Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1380 (Ch)

The claimants were seeking permission to change their expert after their solicitors admitted they did not comply with applicable rules and guidance on experts' joint statements. 

Jenni Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC)

An expert must read and engage with any judgments which form part of their instructions. 

An expert report did not address all of the questions posed in the letter of instruction, reformulated other questions, and failed to comply with FPR Part 25 in a number of important ways, while the expert witness's oral evidence failed to provide an impartial expert view.