Case Updates

In this patent case, the judge noted that neither expert was a native English speaker and both had difficulties with questions put to them during cross-examination. The misstep of one expert over the word “buckling”, which he had used in his report, and his use of a translator during cross-examination for reference, led the judge to approach his written evidence with a degree of caution.

Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited [2025] EWHC 497 (Pat)

The judge in this claim for professional negligence struck out a witness statement which contained paragraphs which were pure opinion, made by the witness as a self-proclaimed expert, noting that it was expert evidence by the back door, in contravention of CPR Part 35 and plainly abusive. 

Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB)

While the Judge in this extradition appeal ultimately reached the same conclusion as the District Court Judge, and dismissed the appeal, he pointed out significant deficiencies in how the District Court Judge had treated the expert psychological evidence.

The judge preferred the evidence of the Claimant's expert because of the Defendant's expert’s approach to his task as expert, his confusion over the proper approach to what prior art was and was not in the common general knowledge, the number of assertions he made which he was forced to resile from as incorrect, and his failure to acknowledge a key fact.

The judge found that the forensic accounting expert’s approach of forming an opinion as to the value of the Company, then carrying out a detailed calculation and only if it matches his initial opinion accepting it, undermined the credibility and reliability of his opinion as to the value of the Company.

In considering whether the claimant should be required to provide a breakdown of expert and medical agency fees, the judge decided to offer the claimant the option of either providing the breakdown of expert and medical reporting organisation fees, to enable an assessment of work of both the expert and the MRO, or not providing that information and having the expert fees assessed on the hypothetical basis that there was no medical reporting organisation involved.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant acted negligently in obtaining her consent for laser eye surgery including failing to adequately investigate her ophthalmic condition prior to the surgery.

The defendant made an application for adjournment on the proposition that it could not be ready for trial because its experts required additional time to complete their reports. However, it was unable to demonstrate that it would be unfair to proceed with the existing trial.  

The Appellant was given permission to change neurology experts after the judge found that the application was not so late as to be prejudicial to the Respondents, and that the Appellant was not engaging in expert shopping.

The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance.

Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)