6 November Case Updates Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings 05. Rules and Regulations, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Technology and Construction Court Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This case referred to a circumstance more commonly, or perhaps seldom otherwise, encountered in the Technology and Construction Court.
22 October Case Updates Steven Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWHC 2389 (KB) 05. Rules and Regulations, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.
16 October Podcast Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Range of Opinion, 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion, 11. Responding to questions, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, Podcast Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee, to find out about the sorts of issues his committee sees in the expert reports submitted to them, before hearing advice from Colin and Lady Justice Simler on how to ensure you meet the requirement to provide a range of opinion.
9 October Case Updates Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKUT 301 (LC) 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 13. Changing your opinion, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Surveyors, Valuation 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.
3 October Case Updates Fact finding by experts Facts, Ireland, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements The court could see no basis on which the plaintiffs could seek to rely on any agreement reached between the experts as to the underlying facts. Nolan v Dildar Ltd (Approved) [2024] IEHC 4
18 September News The Single Biggest Change White Paper 05. Rules and Regulations, 10. Report Writing, 02. Setting Fees and Getting Paid, 06. Receiving Instructions, 07. Working with Instructing Parties, 08. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 11. Responding to questions, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, 09. Records Assessments and Site Visits Earlier this year, we asked our members about the single biggest change they’ve seen since they started practicing as an Expert Witness. With members from numerous disciplines who’ve been practicing from 40 years to 4 months, we expected a wide variety of insights, and we weren’t disappointed.
12 September Case Updates Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis Non-accidental injury, 08. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 14. Giving Oral Evidence, 15. Criticism and Complaints, Known unknowns, Metaphyseal corner fractures, Protein pump inhibitors The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth. There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just jointly appointed experts in the Family Court. Re M (A Child) (Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas) [2024] EWFC 209 (B)
5 September Case Updates When is a summary not a summary? 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Criticism and Complaints The experts in this case appear to have set out a joint statement in the form of a Scott schedule. Unfortunately one of the experts used his column to set out lengthy texts and seemingly seeking to use the statement as a Trojan horse by which to introduce evidence that the court has excluded. Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd & Anor v Ruhan & Anor [2024] EWHC 1263 (Comm)
20 August Case Updates Kirk v Culina Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 1431 (KB) 10. Report Writing, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Accident and Emergency The court considered that there was some substance to the criticisms of an accident and emergency expert for not dealing with matters in his primary report which he then agreed in the joint report with the opposing expert (who had included the issues in his primary report). These were however criticisms for failing to deal with points, rather than criticisms of the opinions he actually expressed in his primary report.
19 July News Third Amendment to the Criminal Practice Directions Joint Expert Statements, 05. Rules and Regulations, 12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Criminal Procedure Rules The Lady Chief Justice has issued an amendment to the Criminal Practice Directions which comes into force on 22 July 2024. Experts working under the Criminal Procedure Rules should be aware of changes to the rules relating to joint statements.