Although this is a case of alleged dental negligence and can be usefully read in full not only by dental experts, but by dentists, oral surgeons and students of dentistry, it is also of some general significance not just for experts who provide evidence in Scotland, for whom the exposition of Scots negligence law is invaluable and civil procedure significantly different, but for lessons about expert evidence in clinical negligence cases generally.

Gallagher v Clement (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 035

Marisa Shek is a Healthcare Architect and owner of Shek Architects. As an Expert Witness, she specialises in the field of accommodation for disabled people in personal injury and clinical negligence litigation. Here, she tells us how she became an Expert Witness and why her work continues to inspire her.   

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.

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational decision" to end his life can be construed as satisfying Turner proposition 4. It makes clear that Turner proposition (4) is not directed at the general background or lead-up to a suicide attempt but is focused on the moment in time when suicide is attempted.

Hebda v District Court in Krakow, Poland [2025] EWHC 860 (Admin)

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a new consolidation of the Criminal Procedure Rules and an accompanying guide. The new Rules will come into force on 6 October 2025.

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key Objectives. In this article, we set out the key points for expert witnesses and provide some initial guidance. 

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)

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice Direction 77 to support the implementation of the new power of the Secretary of State for Justice to direct the Parole Board to refer certain top-tier cases to the High Court for a new release decision.