1 February Case Updates An expert who oversteps their role puts their evidence at risk Clinical psychology, Duty of Expert, Duty to the court, Judicial critism, European Convention on Human Rights, Humans Rights Act 1998, Gender Recognition Act 2004, 06. Rules and Regulations, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits An expert who does not understand their duty to be independent, and oversteps their role, risks the court either refusing to admit their evidence or placing less weight upon it. Ryan Castellucci, R (on the application of) v Gender Recognition Panel [2024] EWHC 54 (Admin)
30 January Case Updates Jagger (& others) -v- Axa Insurance PLC Credibility, Criticism of a party's legal team, CPR Part 35, Judicial critism, Cavity Wall Insulation, Construction, 06. Rules and Regulations The Claimants' solicitors abused the Court's process by issuing claims based on the evidence of an expert when there were significant concerns as to his independence in a previous case and therefore his understanding of his duty to the Court as an expert.
22 January Case Updates Expert witnesses must not act as advocates for the party instructing them Expert evidence, Judicial critism, Dentistry, Credibility of expert, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints An expert witness must be careful not to step over the boundary between being an independent expert and an advocate for the party instructing them. Balachandra v The General Dental Council [2024] EWHC 18 (Admin) (10 January 2024)
19 January Case Updates Experts making the evidence fit their own conclusions do not meet their duty to the Court Expert evidence, Medical expert, CPR Part 35, Duty to the court, Judicial critism, Credibility of expert, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 16. Criticism and Complaints A medical expert witness was not helping the Court by trying to make the evidence about a child's injuries fit their own conclusions. LCC v V & B [2023] EWFC 268 (18 August 2023)
16 October Case Updates Jennings v Otis Ltd [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB) Negligence, Experts’ joint inspection, Accident, Engineering, 06. Rules and Regulations, 07. Receiving Instructions, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements Witness attendance at experts’ meeting
8 August Case Updates RN, R (On the Application Of) v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2023] EWCA Civ 882 Psychology, Psychiatry, Psychiatric Injury, Physical Injury, 06. Rules and Regulations, CICA claims “Is a psychiatric injury a physical injury?” This case is probably of more relevance to those who instruct experts in CICA claims than to experts. However, if you do report in such a case, you may provide the expert evidence upon which the Court of Appeal relies when it finally resolves this issue.
8 August Case Updates R (on the application of Wynne) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 1111 (Admin) Psychology, Psychiatry, Parole Board, 06. Rules and Regulations “Parole Board needs expert assistance”
7 August Case Updates J & J Franks Ltd v Shotter [2023] EWHC 1080 (KB) Negligence, Procedural rules, Literature, Veterinary medicine, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence “Four inexperienced experts on their learning curve”
7 August Case Updates R v Beggs [2023] NICA 24 Personal injury, Psychology, Learning disability, Psychiatry, reliability, Sexual assault medicine, ABE interview, Down syndrome, Genital injury, Menopause, Penetration, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits “Beware opining on the reliability of a complainant”
7 August Case Updates CD v BB [2023] IEHC 204 Psychiatry, Reasoning, Ireland, litigation capacity, Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Frontal Assessment Battery, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing “Unnecessary detail”