Case Updates

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.

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 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.

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.

The claimants mounted an attack in cross-examination on the expertise and competence of an expert in Old Age Psychiatry. 

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.

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)