esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc
Court of Appeal
“An expert’s report was of little value in evaluating the likelihood of trade-mark confusion from the standpoint of a consumer.”
The Times, 5th September 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A judge has said that expert evidence in trade mark disputes is rarely likely to be relevant when it comes to deciding if a consumer will be confused by two supposedly similar marks.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842; [2008] WLR (D) 252
“Since a trade mark case which raised the critical issue of confusion would be assessed from the viewpoint of the average consumer, the cogency of the evidence of an expert as to his own opinion, where the tribunal was in a position to form its own view, was in real doubt. The facts spoke for themselves. Consumer surveys were costly to produce and their results, when based upon the wrong questions, of no evidential value. To be commended was the practice of giving case management directions at an interim stage which required the parties to seek directions of the court (which could be given in advance of the trial) as to any proposed survey that the parties might wish to put in evidence at trial.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Two ‘caring and supportive’ parents have won a high court ruling clearing them of deliberately harming their six-week-old baby, despite a conclusion by the seven medical experts in the case that his injuries were most likely to have been caused by intentional shaking.”
The Guardian, 12th May 2008
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A doctor accused of giving false evidence in the trial of a mother accused of killing her son by poisoning him with salt will not be prosecuted.”
BBC News, 23rd April 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Failures in the vetting procedures used for expert witnesses have emerged after a court ruled that a computer analyst who helped train hundreds of police officers and gave evidence in scores of trials is a liar and a fraudster.”
The Observer, 23rd March 2008
Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
“Paediatricians need greater protection from parents and the press or many will refuse to act in child abuse cases, an expert warned today.”
The Guardian, 18th February 2008
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Expert witnesses are on trial — again. This time their role has been put under the spotlight by two jurors who broke cover to speak out and question the conviction of a childminder for killing an 11-month-old baby in her care.”
The Times, 20th December 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“After a host of miscarriages of justice based on discredited expert witnesses, calls are growing for radical reform of their use in court, writes Lois Rogers.”
The Sunday Times, 18th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Three out of four judges and lawyers make no checks on the qualifications of expert witnesses, whose evidence can be crucial to a finding of guilt or innocence, research suggests.”
The Times, 12th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The government is to abandon a controversial proposal to use expert witnesses to brief juries on the ‘myths’ surrounding rape after judges warned the plan could lead to miscarriages of justice, the Guardian has learned.”
The Guardian, 25th September 2007
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The pathologist who failed to disclose test results on one of Sally Clark’s babies which could have pointed to a death from natural causes has won the right to stay on the register of Home Office-accredited pathologists.”
The Guardian, 6th September 2007
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Expert’s report in context
Regina (A) v. Liverpool City Council
Queen’s Bench Division
“A local authority determining the age of an applicant claiming to be a child had to have regard to the whole context and not just rely on a single expert dental report.”
The Times, 1st August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Aaron and others
“In directors disqualification proceedings, the court might at times need expert assistance on issues of fact, but, generally speaking, it was hard to see why a court should need expert evidence that was simply expert opinion when considering the key question of whether a director was unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024