The EWI has been provided with a copy of a recently written paper setting out the risk of re-traumatising claimants in medico-legal litigation and proposing reforms to reduce this risk. We support the principles set out in the paper and the aims and objectives of the authors, and consider the paper is a good starting point for a broader discussion among the medio-legal community of the risk of worsening the psychological trauma and the need to work within a trauma informed approach. We have set out in this article some issues we think could benefit from the input of the wider community, but welcome views on other issues.

Ryan Shields is a digital forensics expert who has worked in the police and private sector. Here, he explains why he is passionate about using his expertise as an Expert Witness and shares his advice for others considering joining the Expert world.

In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any proceeding, so join us as we discuss how to do them well and avoid the common pitfalls, look at the EWI's recently refreshed guidance, and hear top tips from Beth Rigby and Jessica Thurston, who present the EWI webinar on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. And as usual, we begin with our segment on 'What's going on at EWI?' and end with 'Newsreel', a quick fire discussion of the key things you need to know this month. 

The claimants, who carried on a business breeding falcons, made allegations of harassment and nuisance against their neighbour, who operated a small farm neighbouring their property. While the judge accepted some of the claimants’ criticisms of one of the defendants’ experts, he also noted that the claimants could not complain about the consequences of their putting in new evidence that was not in accordance with the timetable laid down at the CCMC.

Personal injury claims are being brought by approximately 220 pilots and cabin crew at the High Court in London on the grounds of aerotoxic syndrome (ATS). This group of claimants includes 51 claims which were issued by Thompsons in March 2019 involving pilots and cabin crew working for EasyJet, British Airways, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic. These two claims are not included in these ongoing English collective proceedings. These were claims by two pilots who lost the chance of bringing successful claims as a result of the admitted negligence of a Scottish law practice.

Gough v Cannons Law Practice; Montague-Trenchard v Cannons Law Practice (Court of Session) [2025] CSOH 28 

In short, the case illustrates a very common situation in which, on the basis of what is often an appropriately diagnosed psychological condition or mental disorder, it is asserted that a litigant is not capable of participating in legal proceedings. In criminal cases, in relation to the accused, the issue is usually fitness to plead and stand trial. In civil proceedings the issue is litigation capacity. As is often the case, the court’s decision is influenced by how the litigant has functioned in previous cases or earlier in the instant proceedings.

F v W [2024] IEHC 631

The Claimant claimed he had suffered a substantial loss due to the destruction of two consignments of poppy heads by the Defendants. The parties were given permission to rely on the written evidence of expert accountants. The Claimant made an application to the Court for the accountancy expert witnesses to give oral evidence at the trial and an application to adduce evidence prepared by his son.

If, which is not clear, medical evidence that assists in the application of the adult dependent relative provisions as to entrance clearance for dependent adults to enter the UK is usually provided by doctors in the country in which the dependent relatives reside, this judgment may be of little interest to healthcare experts in the UK. However, it makes a very basic point about the format of an expert report and it illustrates how important it is to know and understand the particular test or rule that is applicable.

Ali v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] UKAITUR UI2024000707

This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn.   

The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved.  The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated.  This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.

The Legal Aid Agency ('LAA') have updated their Guidance on the Remuneration of Expert Witnesses.