Case Updates

The judge found that an expert on risk assessment adopted an overly strict and slightly unrealistic approach in assessing the adequacy of a risk assessment conducted by a cycling club.

Apart from the oft-made point about the importance for experts of the chronology, especially in cases where the issue is causation or clinical negligence, there is nothing in this case for healthcare experts in general. It is an importance case for ENT experts because several similar claims are due to be heard over the next months. 

The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the snowmobile guides’ evidence, but positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour.

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist would need to be instructed after the expert directly challenged the findings of the Court and the soundness of the evidence on which those findings were based. The Court denied the expert’s subsequent request for anonymity.

Liverpool City Council v A & Ors [2025] EWHC 1474 (Fam)

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in general as well as orthopaedic experts. It sets out the law on consent as established in not only Montgomery but also in McCullough. It touches on orthopaedic experts giving evidence in cases outside their own subspecialty.

Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)

For paediatricians this is an example of how not to conduct an expert paediatric assessment and present the results to the court. It also illustrates some basic points applicable to all experts.

M v F [2025] EWFC 150 (B)

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith provides an incredibly useful judgment following the hearing at the High Court in March of this year. Previous case law and legal tests for gross misconduct were addressed and applied given that such allegations underpinned the case.  The parties adduced expert evidence to establish the value of shares on the assumption that warranties had been breached.This update focuses on both experts’ evidence given that the approaches were significantly different and that one was clearly preferred over the other.      

Inspired Education Online Limited -v- Tom Crombie [2025] EWHC 1236 (Ch). 

The court noted that the jointly instructed expert demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both CPR 35 and the duties owed to the court by an expert in allowing someone else in this firm to answer CPR 35 questions on his behalf. His report was also entirely equivocal on the key issues and therefore offered little or no assistance to the court.

Kate Rodgers v Laural Brookes [2025] EWCC 31

In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports, including addenda and other admissible communications. The fundamental disagreement was the diagnosis: PTSD or adjustment disorder. It appears that four of the reports by the defendant’s expert were in rebuttal of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert. This summary does not reflect the considerable extent to which the court had to analyse the evidence as to diagnosis. In the court’s judgment diagnosis hardly mattered. The judge said that more important, in his view, was the impact that the condition had on the plaintiff’s everyday functioning and lifestyle. Then when awarding damages, he said that the psychiatric damage suffered by the plaintiff attributable to the accident could be described as moderately severe whether that be under a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychiatric damage generally. 

The claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution.

MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)