‘Emily James and Kate Tompkins, barristers of 36 Family, consider a new judgment in which Sir Peter Jackson affirmed, and offered guidance on, current testing arrangements.’
Family Law Week, 12th October 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘For those of who have a weekly blog to populate with content, the court’s summer recess can prove to be a challenging time. It leads us to cast our net further afield looking for ideas and cases to highlight. That is why, this week, I’m looking at two cases from August, one a personal injury claim from the County Court in Leeds, the other an intellectual property dispute from the Chancery Division. What both have in common are some choice words about the parties’ expert evidence. I know Jonathan has looked at this topic twice in recent months but, as I said, we’ve had the summer recess and these comments are just too bloggable to be ignored!’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 10th October 2017
‘Thomas v Lambeth LBC, County Court at Central London, 16 March 2017. This is a s.204 appeal in the County Court of a vulnerability decision by Lambeth. Of particular interest is that the judgment concerns and indeed turns on Now Medical reports on the homeless applicant and the use made of them by LB Lambeth on s.184 decision and on s.202 review.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Senior judges have called on expert witnesses to show greater openness and avoid “hiding behind the team view”.’
Litigation Futures, 25th September 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited) [2017] EWHC 1517 (QB) His Honour Judge Gosnell (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered some key issues relating to fatal accident damages.’
Zenith PI, 10th September 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A family judge has told the Legal Aid Agency not to issue a letter ‘almost akin to a tick-box form’ should it refuse to pay an expert’s fee in a case involving a three-month old boy at the centre of care proceedings.’
Law Society's Gazette, 24th August 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A costs judge has rejected a defendant’s attempt to deprive a clinical negligence claimant of their £10,000 insurance premium.’
Law Society's Gazette, 24th August 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Legal Aid Agency has been told to directly apologise and pay £10,000 to an expert witness in immigration cases for causing him distress, inconvenience and financial loss by excessively auditing his bills.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th July 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) agreed minor variations that judges can adopt in orders for concurrent expert evidence – known as “hot-tubbing” – but acknowledged the changes it has approved to the CPR are “not as radical” as had been recommended by the Civil Justice Council (CJC).’
Litigation Futures, 14th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Concurrent expert evidence – known as hot-tubbing – should only be carried out in the “classic” manner where experts are sworn and give evidence at the same time, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 27th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Seven expert witnesses who fabricated evidence about the cost of replacement hire cars for motorists in road crashes have been jailed.’
The Guardian, 16th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘How should a judge direct a jury where an expert witness has given their opinion on the “ultimate issue” to be decided in the case? The answer, the Court of Appeal has confirmed, is: carefully. In R v Sellu [2016] EWCA Crim 1716, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of the Appellant, a consultant surgeon, for gross negligence manslaughter on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury as to the meaning of gross negligence, in circumstances where expert witnesses had expressly given their view as to whether the conduct of the Appellant amounted to the same.’
Full story (PDF)
Henderson Chambers, 19th April 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Government plans to impose fixed costs on clinical negligence cases worth up to £25,000 “will prevent many cases being brought”, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 11th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An insurer has failed to convince a judge that a medical expert who agreed to cover its costs in a whiplash case should be ordered to pay on the indemnity basis.’
Litigation Futures, 9th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This note is intended to set out how medical opinion in relation to and the Court’s approach to “shaken baby syndrome” have developed.’
Six Pump Court, 22nd March 2017
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Expert witnesses giving concurrent evidence – or ‘hot-tubbing’ – should be the default position in the Mercantile Court and Technology and Construction Court (TCC), the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has suggested.’
Litigation Futures, 4th April 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge, Judge Inglis, should have directed himself according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11. However the Court of Appeal didn’t stop there. They went on to find that, had the relevant medical practitioner in this case, followed Montgomery and given the In Claimant’s mother the relevant information; she would have elected to have her baby induced on 27th December which would have avoided the brain injury and consequent disabilities that he now suffers from.’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The last five years have brought important reforms to care proceedings. The Judiciary made proposals for modernising family justice with a focus on strong judicial leadership, judicial continuity and better case management.2 The Family Justice Review3 recommended that the duration of care proceedings should be limited to 26 weeks, that fewer experts should be instructed in proceedings and there should be more limited scrutiny of the care plan, with the court considering only the plan for permanency (care by the parents(s), placement in the extended family, long-term fostering, or adoption) and not matters such as services for the child and contact arrangements. The Review’s recommendations were enacted in the Children and Families Act 2014, supplemented by new procedural rules (the PLO 2014) and implemented on April 22, 2014. This date also marked the opening of the Family Court, replacing the triple jurisdiction of the Family Proceedings Court, the County Court and the High Court. ‘
Family Law Week, 17th February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘There are suggestions that some accident victims are being “forced into rehab” by lawyers and claims management companies determined to “boost their own incomes”, an independent report has found.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Experts and their evidence are under hostile scrutiny amid fears over a decline in standards, reports Grania Langdon-Down.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 20th February 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025