Biased instructions, harassment and acting pro bono

 

Commentary 

Few reported cases assist as to expert evidence in cases of harassment and on the issue of injury to feelings as distinct from psychiatric injury. This summary should be read for this reason. It illustrates how the expert should respond to less than neutral instructions. It illustrates how cardiological evidence was analysed in order for the court to conclude that the defendant’s course of conduct had caused a myocardial infarction. It also reveals the charitable aspect of pro bono legal practice.   

Learning points:

• Awards may be made in some civil cases for anxiety, distress or injury to feelings not amounting to psychiatric injury, so as far as possible the expert should seek to make the distinction.

• Although it is not for the expert in such a case to decide into which band of injury the claimant’s condition falls, the psychopathology should be described with sufficient particularity as to assist the court in deciding on the band of injury.

• Where instructions are not set out in neutral terms, the expert should set them out in such a way, and if necessary comment, so as to demonstrate their independence and impartiality.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login