“A High Court judge has refused to recuse himself from a case involving an expert witness who was once his academic supervisor at Oxford University.”
Litigation Futures, 6th November 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“John Tughan, barrister, of 4 Paper Buildings reviews important recent cases of which all public law practitioners ought to be aware.”
Family Law Week, 25th October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“The post-Jackson climate for expert witnesses is ‘leaner and meaner’, according to a leading observer of their work.”
Litigation Futures, 25th September 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“David Bedingfield, barrister at 4 Paper Buildings, sets the latest reforms relating to expert evidence in their historical context and considers the dilemmas which expert evidence has long presented to the courts.”
Family Law Week, 29th August 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has taken the highly unusual step of ruling that a judge should have recused himself from hearing a wasted costs order against a party’s solicitors given the comments he made about them in his substantive judgment.”
Litigation Futures, 27th August 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“The judge who had heard a substantive application would almost always be the right judge to deal with consequential issues as to costs, even if he had made findings adverse to a party in the course of reaching his conclusion. However, exceptional circumstances might arise where there was apparent bias stemming from the facts of the case which meant that the judge should have recused himself from dealing with the issue of costs.”
WLR Daily, 14th August 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“On 24 June 2013, Mr Justice Akenhead handed down judgment in Igloo Regeneration v Powell Williams Partnership [2013] EWHC 1718 (TCC). Anneliese Day QC and Michael Ryan acted for the successful defendant.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square Chambers, 17th July 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“Evidence in a trade mark and passing off case of the factual circumstances of a trade by a person in that trade, even when they deployed their experience in that trade to bolster their evidence, was not necessarily expert evidence within the meaning of CPR Pt 35.”
WLR Daily, 5th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“John Tughan, barrister of 4 Paper Buildings, examines some important recent judgments of particular interest to public law children lawyers.”
Family Law Week, 24th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“What impact will the latest raft of legal aid cuts have on people fighting councils or who are wrongly accused of a crime? We ask former defendants, their families, lawyers and experts.”
The Guardian, 2nd July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Christopher Rank, barrister, of Cornwall Street Chambers considers expert evidence, rule 25.1 of the FPR and The President’s recent guidance in Re H-L (A Child).”
Family Law Week, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Dominic Regan is in the mood for change post-Jackson.”
New Law Journal, 30th May 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“William Tautz, barrister of Tooks Chambers, examines the fundamental challenge to psychiatric diagnosis recently announced by the British Psychological Association and explores its implications for the instruction and cross-examination of expert witnesses in a post-streamlined PLO world.”
Family Law Week, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“In an ideal world, experts would be brought into a case to help ascertain what has happened, use objective instruments that quantify and interpret the evidence, and provide the court with an unbiased view. However, the reality is that often experts are recruited to help make a case for an existing theory of what has happened, and they rely on subjective judgments and interpretations. Can we expect experts to be objective? Is it realistic that without specific cognitive measures experts can be impartial?”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 21st May 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“From 1 April 2013 a number of changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) governing court action in England and Wales took effect. This is a summary of those changes.”
OUT-LAW.com, May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“New national standards to raise the quality of experts used in family courts and get rid of time-consuming evidence which adds little value in helping judges reach a decision were announced by the Government today.”
Ministry of Justice, 16th May 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“This is a consultation on minimum standards for expert witnesses providing evidence in the family courts in proceedings relating to children in England and Wales.”
Ministry of Justice, 16th May 2013
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“Too many expert witnesses are being paid to give evidence of little value in family courts, according to the Ministry of Justice which is proposing a fresh round of cuts to legal aid.”
The Guardian, 16th May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“This successful challenge to a decision by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) arose from an expert assessor in family proceedings – not unnaturally – refusing to begin work unless funding was in place. If the LAA are asked to fund an assessment on behalf of a party with legal aid, then it is common for lawyers to obtain prior authority from the LAA to ensure that the expert will be paid for their work. If not, then the lawyers themselves can be liable for an expert’s costs. In this case, prior authority to pay for the expert assessment had been refused by the LAA thus resulting in further court hearings and delay in the resolution of the case for the children.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025