The details of this case are for gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. The learning points are of general application and although made by an expert in their first case, they reflect mistakes made by some more experienced experts who should know better.

Patricia's Father v Patricia (Rev1) [2025] EWCOP 30 (T3)

The Claimant, on her solicitor’s advice, covertly recorded her testing by the Defendant’s neuropsychological expert. Weighing up the factors in favour of admitting the evidence and against admitting it, the judge considered that they were very finely balanced and quite difficult and that he may well have ruled that the evidence could not be relied on, if the Defendant’s expert had not himself inadvertently recorded the testing.

The task for the expert in this case was enormous. Capacity is issue specific. This means that if the issue is someone’s capacity to conduct legal proceedings, in this case sixteen sets of proceedings, the expert has to consider each set of proceedings. The person may have the capacity to conduct some and not others.

Johnston v Financial Ombudsman Service [2025] EWCA Civ 551

This judgment appears to provide some clarity on an issue about which seemingly conflicting advice is given to experts. It concerns the listing of documents and materials. 

Brown v Sterne [2025] NIMaster 15

This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out following a stroke. The court considered a number of relevant publications.

For experts in psychiatry and psychology, it is important as it illustrates how the court tests evidence in cases involving performance validity testing.

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB) 

One of the important differences between Ireland and other British Isles jurisdictions is in the procedures followed in personal injury litigation. This case is illustrative. If the plaintiff had brought his case in England or Wales, how would this case have progressed?

Keogh v O'Keeffe [2025] IEHC 26

Vanessa Jane Davies is the founder of Skin Camouflage Services, an independent expert practice offering paramedical skin camouflage, non-invasive scar therapy, and Expert Witness services. The UK’s most experienced provider of Expert Witness opinion on paramedical skin camouflage, Vanessa has provided expert testimony in over 650 cases. She tells us more about her fascinating line of work and why she finds Expert Witness work so rewarding.

The Claimant alleged that an accident five years earlier was the cause of the amputation of his lower leg. The judge criticised the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert, Professor H, for demonstrating at times a rather ‘loose approach’ to his expert evidence and a closed mindedness towards his evidence.

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use of validity testing in medico-legal assessment. Commentaries from Professor Michael Kopelman (neuropsychiatry), Dr Karen Addy (neuropsychology), Mr Daniel Friedland (neuropsychology) and Dr Kathryn Newns (clinical psychology) were published in the MAEP Expert Witness Healthcare Matters newsletter, coordinated by Professor Rix.

This follow-up brings together the key points emerging across disciplines. It also clarifies several areas regarding the early learning points given in the September case update. The discussion in this article refines those conclusions and reflects current multidisciplinary consensus. 

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)