Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2025] EWHC 2033 (Comm) Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2025] EWHC 2033 (Comm)

Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2025] EWHC 2033 (Comm)

The claimant asserted that the defendant was required to transfer title in a vessel at the expiry of the bareboat counterparty between them. The judge...
Reliance on performance validity tests administered by psychiatrists Reliance on performance validity tests administered by psychiatrists

Reliance on performance validity tests administered by psychiatrists

This is a very important judgment for psychiatrists and psychologists who employ validity testing when assessing litigants. There were two experts,...
The Medical Expert in Court The Medical Expert in Court

The Medical Expert in Court

Fans of true crime and anyone involved in giving expert evidence might be interested in a recent podcast episode from EWI Fellow, Dr Harry Brunjes.
Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4 Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

Andrew Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd [2025] EWCC 4

The claimant alleged that the vibrating tools he used while employed by the defendant caused Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. The judge criticised one of...
EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme

EWI partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme

The Expert Witness Institute has set up a new partnership with the Pro Bono Expert Support Scheme which is a collaborative initiative between the...
RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th... RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th...

RICS consultation on Professional Standard for Surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses - 5th...

The RICS is seeking feedback from public stakeholders on the updating of its Professional Standard for Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses. The...
Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness... Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

Podcast Episode 15: The Power of EWI Membership: Raising Standards in Expert Witness...

In the 15th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkis, discuss the power of EWI membership and the...
A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

A day in the life of an Accommodation Expert Witness

Marisa Shek is a Healthcare Architect and owner of Shek Architects. As an Expert Witness, she specialises in the field of accommodation for disabled...
Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from...
A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

Susan Jones, founder of SJ Consultancy, has been a town planning consultant for over 40 years. As an Expert Witness, she provides evidence at public...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...
A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

Dr. Rohit Seth is trained in Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hair Transplant Surgery with over 20 years of surgical experience. A practicing...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Judicial analysis of written expert healthcare evidence
Keith Rix 1134

Judicial analysis of written expert healthcare evidence

byKeith Rix

 

Commentary

This is an important judgment for experts who prepare personal injury reports in the Republic of Ireland but also for all experts, in all of the jurisdictions in the British Isles, for its description of the judicial analysis of expert evidence. It deals with procedure in Ireland for the instruction of specialist medical experts through plaintiffs’ general practitioners.   

The judgment includes an extract from McGrath’s Evidence (3rd edn, 2020) about how the weight of expert evidence is tested by the court. Most of the factors enumerated can be used to form a useful framework for the case-based discussion of an expert report in peer review. 

The judgment includes some implicit criticism of two of the experts but, as the judge acknowledged, his evaluation of the medical evidence had been complicated in the absence of oral evidence. 

Learning points:

A healthcare expert approached by a solicitor acting for a plaintiff in personal injury litigation in Ireland ought not accept instructions without first asking if the plaintiff’s general practitioner has either refused to refer the plaintiff to a healthcare specialist or has failed within 21 days to respond to a request to do so. In the event that this is not so, it is likely that the solicitor will explain why a direct referral is being made to the expert.

It is appropriate for a healthcare expert to adopt an attitude of professional scepticism in their assessment of the subject of their report.

A bald assertion that preexisting problems were aggravated by approximately x% is not enough. Such an opinion calls for an analysis of the evidence upon which it is based.

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

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.