Expert Matters - The Podcast

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘Committee) decided, provisionally, to postpone the extended Fixed Recoverable Cost (‘FRC’) stocktake, which was initially planned for February 2025, until October 2025, while the the cost which may be recovered to obtain medical reports in low value road traffic accident related soft tissue and whiplash injury claims are being uprated by 25.4%.

The judge in this claim for professional negligence struck out a witness statement which contained paragraphs which were pure opinion, made by the witness as a self-proclaimed expert, noting that it was expert evidence by the back door, in contravention of CPR Part 35 and plainly abusive. 

Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB)

This is a case in which the tribunal was critical of an expert witness. One criticism was that he did not expressly acknowledge the guidance provided in the Ikarian Reefer in his declaration – “a step taken by many experts who prepare reports for this Chamber”.

UI2023005210 [2024] UKAITUR UI2023005210

In the 9th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at how to become an Expert Witnesss. If you think expert witness work might be for you, don't miss the great advice in this month's episode where we talk to the wider EWI team on expert witness training, how to become an EWI member, and the key next steps to get your practice up and running, from setting up your business, terms and conditions, and insurance to sorting out your CV, marketing strategy and web presence.

In considering whether the claimant should be required to provide a breakdown of expert and medical agency fees, the judge decided to offer the claimant the option of either providing the breakdown of expert and medical reporting organisation fees, to enable an assessment of work of both the expert and the MRO, or not providing that information and having the expert fees assessed on the hypothetical basis that there was no medical reporting organisation involved.

Although this is a dental/maxillofacial negligence case, it is of importance for all healthcare experts instructed in cases where consent may be an issue. It highlights points about which experts should enquire when there may be an issue as to consent to a surgical or other procedure. In this case it was found that the consent process was deficient in a number of respects. It is also a case which illustrates how expert evidence can separately assist the court on the issues of breach of duty, causation, condition and prognosis.

Winterbotham v Shahrak (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2633 (KB) 

For surveyor experts, this case illustrates some very basic errors and it may therefore also be a useful case for expert surveyor witness training.   

McBride v McGuigan & Anor [2024] NIMaster 20 

The defendant made an application for adjournment on the proposition that it could not be ready for trial because its experts required additional time to complete their reports. However, it was unable to demonstrate that it would be unfair to proceed with the existing trial.  

In the 8th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss re-evaluating your opinion. We look at possible reasons why you might wish to re-evaluate your opinion and the stages in the proceedings where re-evaluation is most likely to occur, before hearing from three senior judges on how re-evaluating your opinion can sometimes be positive for your expert evidence, but may also be disastrous. 

A psychiatrist whose evidence had often been admitted in capacity cases was assisted in this case of a hearing-impaired person by an interpreter who had British Sign Language (BSL) Level 1 training. Her assessment was subsequently criticised as she conducted the assessment without ‘suitable specialist learning support’.

For psychiatrists and psychologists, the case illustrates the importance, in the case of some hearing-impaired subjects, of being assisted, or of the assessment being carried out, by a psychologist or psychiatrist who has experience of the assessment and treatment of hearing-disabled people.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ (Rev1) [2024] EWCOP 72 (T3)