‘The issue of medical experts examining claimants and reporting to the courts during the Covid-19 crisis is a difficult one. Here Consultant Neuropsychologist Daniel Friedland provides some guidance.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 23rd April 2020
‘A company v X and others [2020] EWHC 809 (TCC): At the return date hearing of an ex parte injunction, the court was required to consider whether the general principle that there is no property in a witness applied to expert witnesses. That question was dependent on whether an expert witness owed a specific fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty to the instructing client. The court decided that this was a case where a fiduciary duty was owed, that the duty of undivided loyalty extended to the experts’ group companies, and there was a potential conflict of interest. The injunction was maintained pending trial or other resolution of the dispute.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘It is not appropriate for a 15-day hearing into whether a mother has harmed her seven-year-old daughter to be held remotely, the president of the Family Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The High Court has insisted that there must be a “level playing field” when it comes to recording medical examinations.’
Litigation Futures, 21st April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has held that a Court of Appeal judgment in a Civil Contempt sentence appeal involving the Respondent although it did not increase the Respondent doctor’s sentence for contempt but led to a finding of undue lenience should have been put before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) when considering the sanction for the admitted Contempt. This is despite the General Medical Council (GMC), which exercised its right of appeal under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 to bring the case before the High Court, having agreed not to put the judgment before the MPT prior to and during the MPT proceedings.’
Old Square Chambers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Expert witnesses owe a fiduciary obligation of loyalty to their client and it is not satisfied simply by putting in place measures to preserve confidentiality and privilege, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A law firm owner has successfully challenged a court order to pay a personal injury diagnosis provider around £39,000 for unpaid fees.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A doctor who received a suspended sentence for contempt of court over a false medical report has been erased from the medical register by the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 14th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In this article I will examine the issues surrounding the choice of experts in catastrophic brain injury claims. I will write about what experts are reasonably required and in what order the experts should be instructed. We will look at the various expertise available and just what it is they do and how they can help the Court to resolve the issues.’
Exchange Chambers, 25th March 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘On 3rd March 2020, Robert Buckland, the incumbent Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, confirmed that electronic signatures are permissible and legally valid if used in commercial and consumer documents. This declaration followed a Law Commission report, published in September last year, that looked at the electronic execution of documents, including deeds.’
Exchange Chambers, 25th March 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Sitting at Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans took the path less trodden and ordered a consultant spinal surgeon, acting as the Claimant’s expert witness in clinical negligence proceedings, to pay £88,800 to cover the costs wasted as a result of his input.’
Parklane Plowden, 4th March 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The Commercial Court is cracking down on excessively long witness statements, introducing a new set of rules for documents more than 30 pages long.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th March 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘As all legal practitioners know, good experts win cases. Conversely, bad experts can not only lose cases, but sometimes they can cause a bad case to enter
or remain in existence, wasting time, effort and money. Such was the case in Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust, where, in a judgment that will understandably alarm the medico-legal world, the County Court decided that a third party costs order should be made against the Claimant’s expert witness, in the sum of £88,801.68.’
Hailsham Chambers, 21st February 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘In this unusual case, Re W (A child: leave to oppose adoption) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 16, the Court of Appeal has given birth parents leave to oppose an adoption order being made. The child is nearly three years old and has been living with his prospective adopters since he was aged 17 months, in November 2018, after care and placement orders had been made in March of that year. He has never lived with his parents and has not had any contact with them since October 2018.’
Transparency Project, 23rd February 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘In this December article for Personal Injury Focus, Devereux’s Rob Hunter and Bethany Sanders of Leigh Day explore the complexity of life expectancy evidence, providing background, comment, and practice advice on the issue.’
Devereux Chambers, 14th February 2020
Source: www.devereuxchambers.co.uk
‘On 18 December 2019, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke, the Designated Civil Judge sitting at Oxford Combined Court, handed down judgment in Docherty v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (Unreported, 25, 26 & 27 November 2019). This was a clinical negligence claim in which the Claimant made various allegations in respect of her immediate post-natal care which led to her sustaining a serious ankle injury when she fainted due to anaemia caused by blood lost during an instrumental delivery the previous morning.’
Hailsham Chambers, 13th February 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A circuit judge has made a “highly unusual” and large third-party costs order against a claimant’s medical expert witness, whose “improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct” doomed the case.
Litigation Futures, 14th February 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The judgment of Tipples J serves as a sharp reminder to parties who seek permission to change experts that they will be expected to notify the other party of their intention in advance of the hearing. Failure to do so will impose on them a duty to make full and frank disclosure and to ensure that all material information, both as to the law and the facts, is placed before the court. It is necessary to remind the court of the general rule that a party who seeks to change experts will be permitted to do so only on condition it discloses all the written evidence obtained from the former expert. To displace this general rule, the court will need to be satisfied that there is no hint of expert shopping and no attempt to withhold relevant information. ‘
12 King's Bench Walk, 10th February 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘In the final judgment of this long-running group litigation, the court found numerous issues with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system and ruled in favour of the subpostmasters and subpostmistresses. The overarching point that emerges is the importance of advancing a realistic case, supported by properly considered and careful expert and factual witness evidence.’
Henderson Chambers, 22nd January 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘HHJ Freedman, the Designated Civil Judge in Newcastle, had to grapple with this in the case of Mitchell v Precis 548 Ltd [2019] EWHC 3314 (QB). HHJ Freedman had to decide whether to accede to the request of a First Defendant in the proceedings as to whether to vacate a trial 2 days before it was due to start.’
Parklane Plowden, 24th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025