Summary

The judgment dealt with two test cases and a number of generic issues arising from a series of claims brought by former members of the military for damages for noise induced hearing loss (‘NIHL’). The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s employment expert who had more relevant experience and knowledge and engaged more critically with the evidence.  

Learning points

Learning points for experts

• Whether you act for the claimant or the defendant, it is important to engage critical and rigorously with all of the evidence, including the claimant’s evidence, appropriately testing and challenging it.

Learning points for instructing parties

• The court will often prefer the evidence of an expert with more relevant knowledge and experience in the issues for expert evidence.

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

Already a member? Login