ERE Pledge is now under the custodianship of the Expert Witness Institute ERE Pledge is now under the custodianship of the Expert Witness Institute

ERE Pledge is now under the custodianship of the Expert Witness Institute

The Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses (ERE) Pledge has transferred from its founding host organisation (AlixPartners) to the custodianship of...
We all can and do make errors and omissions We all can and do make errors and omissions

We all can and do make errors and omissions

Having written in Hospital Update, 48 years ago, about routine parenteral thiamine alongside prophylaxis or treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms,...

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.

The Cahill v Seepersad [2023] IEHC 583
Case Updates

The Cahill v Seepersad [2023] IEHC 583

The cout found that a financial expert's report was inadmissible as evidence because he was not properly independent or objective, while very little weight could be attributed to the report of an employment expert because he lacked expertise in the area in which he purported to give expert evidence. 

Admissibility or weight: what is the test for expert evidence?
News

Admissibility or weight: what is the test for expert evidence?

In an exceptional case, as here, where the expert singularly and spectacularly fails in their duties to the court, expert evidence may be deemed inadmissible and never get to the stage of being tested for weight.

Saxby v UDG Healthcare (UK) Holdings Limited [2021] EWHC 144 (Ch)
Case Updates

Saxby v UDG Healthcare (UK) Holdings Limited [2021] EWHC 144 (Ch)

The case: a claim arising out of the sale, by the Claimants (and the other shareholders) to the Defendant of their shareholdings contending that they were induced to sell by actionable misrepresentations, some of which were fraudulent, which also amounted to negligent misstatements.