‘The Court of Appeal declines to give guidance on whether a treating clinician who was also an expert would, in some cases, be able to give expert evidence without meeting the requirements of Part 25. It did recommend input by the President’s working group on the issue.’
Park Square Barristers, 27th August 2019
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘An expert witness who said in oral evidence that he saw his role as presenting his side’s case “in the most favourable light” has been criticised by the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 27th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A rough guide to Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Litigation for Professional Indemnity Lawyers.’
Hailsham Chambers, 13th August 2019
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A High Court judge has taken to task an “embarrassing” medical expert who made “continual apologies” and used “an expletive” during his evidence.’
Litigation Futures, 20th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An inheritance dispute between two stepsisters hingeing on which of their parents died first has been resolved by the High Court, which ruled that the younger parent legally outlived the older.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th August 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A critical part of any unfair prejudice petition is the valuation of the minority shareholding. Paul Mitchell QC and Nigel Burroughs of 4 New Square were counsel on different sides in Swain v Swains Plc, a case in which the expert share valuation evidence was taken concurrently. They look at the pros and cons of hot tubbing, and offer practical advice on how to approach the way experts should give their evidence.’
4 New Square, 22nd July 2019
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Nisha Bambhra, barrister at Garden Court Chambers, considers the implications for expert witnesses who fail to comply with court orders.’
Family Law Week, 11th July 2019
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Picture this scenario. The parties’ contract provides that when there is a dispute, an adjudicator is to be appointed from a panel of three, which the parties have already agreed on. In the alternative, if the parties cannot agree the identity of the three panel adjudicators, they will be nominated by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) as the adjudicator nominating body (ANB). In the event, the parties fail to agree on who the three should be, and then one of them is unhappy with who the CIArb selects. This scenario played out before Jefford J earlier this year. It was, in effect, a dispute about a dispute, but led to some interesting comments from the judge about adjudicator nomination.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 4th June 2019
‘The General Medical Council must fundamentally reform to regain the trust of the doctors it regulates and end their “toxic fear” of reprisals if they make mistakes, says a hard-hitting report.’
The Guardian, 6th June 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Grenfell survivors have welcomed the UK prime minister’s decision to appoint two more people to oversee the public inquiry into the disaster that claimed 72 lives, after raising concerns their interests risked being overlooked.’
The Guardian, 30th May 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A carbon credits trial collapsed after an expert witness was found to be unqualified, and more than 20 fraud trials could be declared unsafe.’
The Independent, 30th May 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The High Court has ordered Cardiff-based Hugh James to pay six-figure damages to the family of an asbestos victim for professional negligence in abandoning their personal injury claim.’
Legal Futures, 1st May 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Sometimes the Easter Bunny comes bearing mysteriously non-egg shaped gifts to the data protection practitioner. The judgment of the always-worth-reading Warby J in Rudd v Bridle & J&S Bridle Ltd [2019] EWHC 893 (QB) is just such a delivery, albeit that this one appears to contain a high content of asbestos.’
Panopticon, 18th April 2019
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘MPs are pressing the Treasury Select Committee to open an immediate inquiry into the alleged forgery of signatures in bank court documents.’
BBC News, 29th March 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘On 7 December 2018, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division, issued some practice guidance to judges entitled Practice Guidance: anonymisation and avoidance of the identification of children and the treatment of explicit descriptions of the sexual abuse of children in judgments intended for the public arena(see January [2019] Fam Law 68). In it, he refers to a report written by Julia Brophy and published by the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC) in July 2016 (J Brophy, Anonymisation and avoidance of the identification of children and the treatment of explicit descriptions of the sexual abuse of children in judgments intended for the public arena: judicial guidance, available on the ALC and Nuffield Foundation websites).’
Transparency Project, 12th March 2019
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Tens of thousands of torture survivors could find it easier to secure sanctuary in the UK after a ruling by the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 6th March 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A judge has refused a party’s application to remove their case from the shorter trial scheme.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Anna McKenna QC, 1 King’s Bench Walk, Emily Boardman, partner, Boardman, Hawkins & Osborne LLP and Anna Sutcliffe, barrister, 1 King’s Bench Walk consider the circumstances when it may be appropriate to challenge interim threshold findings in an alleged NAI case without waiting for evidence from a single joint expert.’
Family Law Week, 30th January 2019
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Claimants and their lawyers could not just blame their expert for the “most unsatisfactory” state of his evidence, the Commercial Court has said in refusing to allow them to bring an important part of a huge commercial claim. Mr Justice Males said parties and their lawyers had to step in when they were aware of a problem.’
Litigation Futures, 24th January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘“It certainly should not become routine to provide two versions which, as here, travel over much of the same ground. That approach tests the patience of the experts (and frankly of the court); produces a lengthier joint statement; potentially increases costs and is simply not the best way to focus on the issues. I do not think that anything further needs to be said or done in this case. However, if this worrying trend continues, parties may find that courts begin considering costs consequences.” – Mrs Justice Yip commenting on the experts’ agendas in the recent case of Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust 2018 EWHC 1917 QB.’
No. 5 Chambers, 10th December 2018
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2019