‘The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has admitted that the new rules for whiplash claims, introduced on 1 October this year, “could in practice lead to some misunderstanding” and may have to be amended.’
Litigation Futures, 14th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The government is set to give claimants and their solicitors a random selection of medical experts to choose from as part of the next stage of whiplash reform, it has emerged.’
Litigation Futures, 12th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The use of single joint experts could render the judge purely a “figure head” in proceedings, the president of the Supreme Court has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 10th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A leading barrister has called for a study to examine whether anecdotal evidence of abuse and misconduct by expert witnesses is on the “industrial scale” alleged by some, as funding arrangements increase the risk of malpractice.’
Litigation Futures, 10th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘It is unusual for a patent infringement case to be decided without a full trial. A judge will normally want to hear evidence from experts to understand what people working in the relevant field would have known at the time when the patent was first filed. Recent examples of this kind of analysis can be found in Virgin v Rovi (discussed here) and Teva v AstraZeneca.’
Technology Law Update, 20th October 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘The Rt. Hon. The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales gave the 2014 CBA Kalisher Lecture on the 14 October 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 16th October 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Expert witnesses are being subjected to greater scrutiny by the criminal courts, despite the government’s refusal to implement safeguards recommended by its own law reform advisers.’
The Guardian, 15th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The latest stages of the government’s work on compensation claims take effect today (Wednesday 1 October 2014) with new measures around whiplash and PPI claims.’
Minsitry of Justice, 1st October 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings considers recent judgments in private law children cases, including the President’s judgment on legal aid funding in Q v Q.’
Family Law Week, 19th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘From 1 October 2014 the Chancery Division in London will commence using the new CE-File electronic court file and some data stored on the old IT system will be transferred to CE-File.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 11th September 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘A babysitter who broke a two-year-old toddler’s arm and carried out other assaults has been jailed for 30 months.’
BBC News, 12th September 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘“People think that miscarriages of justice are rare and exceptional,” says Dr Michael Naughton, founder of the UK Innocence Project. “But every single day, people are overturning convictions for criminal offences. Miscarriages of justice are routine, even mundane features of the criminal justice system. They are systemic.” ‘
Daily Telegraph, 4th September 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Public funding is not generally available for litigants in private-law children cases, and no expert can now be instructed in such a case unless the court is satisfied, in accordance with section 13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014, that the expert is “necessary” to assist the court to resolve the proceedings “justly”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st August 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘New guidance for instruction of experts in civil claims 2014 – 15 August 2014
The Civil Justice Council guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims has been published – 21 August 2014 update
Some minor additions have been made to this new CJC Guidance (with new paragraphs 31, 61 and 87 added).’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st August 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Civil Justice Council issues new guidance on instructing experts in civil claims.’
Civil Justice Council, 13th August 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘How do we determine whether someone accused of a crime is physically and mentally fit to participate in a criminal trial? And what do we do if they are not? These are the questions being examined today as the Law Commission brings together leading experts in criminal law and mental health to exchange views at a consultation event at Leeds University.’
Law Commission, 11th June 2014
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
‘The President of the Family Division has adjourned contact proceedings by an unrepresented father pending the Ministry of Justice or any other responsible body to come up with the solution to the problem of one parent suffering an injustice due to the withdrawal of legal aid.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘An undercover Panorama investigation has found some paid expert witnesses prepared to provide helpful court reports despite a client’s confession.’
BBC News, 9th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
R (JG) v Lord Chancellor (Law Society intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 656; [2014] WLR (D) 235
‘Where a child who was a party to private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 had the benefit of public funding in respect of his costs and the court considered that it was necessary to instruct a single joint expert to produce a report to assist the court in determining what was in the best welfare interests of the child, but the other parties had no funding and were unable to pay their share of the expert’s costs, the court could depart from the order that it would otherwise have made, to the greater cost of the publicly funded party, where the failure to adduce the expert’s report would result in a breach of one of the party’s rights under articles 6 or 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the court was not prevented from doing so by section 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Where, in the case of a single joint expert, there was no problem over resources, there was no normal rule of equal apportionment of the costs, and that issue of apportionment was to be determined in the exercise of the court’s discretion, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025