‘Seven expert witnesses who fabricated evidence about the cost of replacement hire cars for motorists in road crashes have been jailed.’
The Guardian, 16th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘How should a judge direct a jury where an expert witness has given their opinion on the “ultimate issue” to be decided in the case? The answer, the Court of Appeal has confirmed, is: carefully. In R v Sellu [2016] EWCA Crim 1716, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of the Appellant, a consultant surgeon, for gross negligence manslaughter on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury as to the meaning of gross negligence, in circumstances where expert witnesses had expressly given their view as to whether the conduct of the Appellant amounted to the same.’
Full story (PDF)
Henderson Chambers, 19th April 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Government plans to impose fixed costs on clinical negligence cases worth up to £25,000 “will prevent many cases being brought”, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 11th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An insurer has failed to convince a judge that a medical expert who agreed to cover its costs in a whiplash case should be ordered to pay on the indemnity basis.’
Litigation Futures, 9th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This note is intended to set out how medical opinion in relation to and the Court’s approach to “shaken baby syndrome” have developed.’
Six Pump Court, 22nd March 2017
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Expert witnesses giving concurrent evidence – or ‘hot-tubbing’ – should be the default position in the Mercantile Court and Technology and Construction Court (TCC), the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has suggested.’
Litigation Futures, 4th April 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge, Judge Inglis, should have directed himself according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11. However the Court of Appeal didn’t stop there. They went on to find that, had the relevant medical practitioner in this case, followed Montgomery and given the In Claimant’s mother the relevant information; she would have elected to have her baby induced on 27th December which would have avoided the brain injury and consequent disabilities that he now suffers from.’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The last five years have brought important reforms to care proceedings. The Judiciary made proposals for modernising family justice with a focus on strong judicial leadership, judicial continuity and better case management.2 The Family Justice Review3 recommended that the duration of care proceedings should be limited to 26 weeks, that fewer experts should be instructed in proceedings and there should be more limited scrutiny of the care plan, with the court considering only the plan for permanency (care by the parents(s), placement in the extended family, long-term fostering, or adoption) and not matters such as services for the child and contact arrangements. The Review’s recommendations were enacted in the Children and Families Act 2014, supplemented by new procedural rules (the PLO 2014) and implemented on April 22, 2014. This date also marked the opening of the Family Court, replacing the triple jurisdiction of the Family Proceedings Court, the County Court and the High Court. ‘
Family Law Week, 17th February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘There are suggestions that some accident victims are being “forced into rehab” by lawyers and claims management companies determined to “boost their own incomes”, an independent report has found.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Experts and their evidence are under hostile scrutiny amid fears over a decline in standards, reports Grania Langdon-Down.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 20th February 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘There has recently been a run of cases in which courts have at case and costs management conferences (CCMC) refused permission to a party seeking to call an expert. Such refusals may be made on grounds of relevance, proportionality or because the evidence that is sought to be adduced is, on analysis, not expert evidence at all, as held by the judge in Darby Properties Ltd and another v Lloyds Bank plc [2016] EWHC 2494 (Ch).’
Littleton Chambers, 11th January 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘A medical expert who failed to disclose that he had trained the defendant on whose behalf he was giving evidence and that they had “worked together closely for a substantial period” has been criticised by the Court of Appeal’
Litigation Futures, 14th February 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In EXP v Barker, the trial judge and Court of Appeal were faced with an unusual situation. An expert witness – although undoubtedly skilled and experienced in his field – had omitted to mention a close personal connection to the party instructing him.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A High Court judge has “unequivocally” condemned claimants represented by group litigation specialists Leigh Day for “deliberate disregard of a court order” in a case where the costs of both sides were estimated at well over £50m.’
litigation Futures, 10th January 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘In Darby Properties Limited and another v Lloyds Bank plc, Master Matthews has given judgment in a case concerning the admissibility of expert evidence in an interest rates hedging products case.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th November 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CRPC) is to look into the provision of expert evidence in court as it considers the recommendations of a recent report into concurrent evidence, known as hot-tubbing.’
Litigation Futures, 28th November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Defendants who failed to engage in discussions about expert evidence, leading to the claimants having to go back to court, have been ordered to pay the costs of the hearing.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has ordered litigants who ignored correspondence from the other side to pay for the resulting costs. Chief Master Marsh, sitting in the Chancery Division, said it was ‘unacceptable’ for defendants in a patent case to simply ignore letters and proceed without proper engagement.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th November 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Where an expert loses sight of her duty to provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within her expertise.’
Zenith PI Blog, 15th November 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Competition Appeal Tribunal will today begin hearing a training provider’s claim that the Law Society acted anti-competitively by requiring law firms to buy its own training in order to maintain their Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) accreditation.’
Legal Futures, 8th November 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2017