‘The Claimant made an application on day 7 of a TCC trial to debar the Defendant from relying on any of its three technical expert reports and to debar those experts from giving evidence at the trial.’
Henderson Chambers, 4th June 2021
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Defendant solicitors have welcomed a ruling that medical agency costs are irrecoverable under the fixed-costs regime.’
Litigation Futures, 17th June 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Those involved in soft tissue injury cases proceeding under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (“the RTA Protocol”) may be familiar with paragraph 7.8B of the Protocol.’
No. 5 Chambers, 11th June 2021
Source: www.no5.com
‘The High Court has excluded three expert witness statements during the trial after ruling that their opinions appeared “directly influenced” by the instructing party.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd June 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Devices such as phones, laptops and flash drives are becoming increasingly central to police investigations, but the reliability of digital forensics experts’ evidence has been called into question.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Instructing solicitors must not jeopardise the impartiality of expert evidence, the deputy president of the Supreme Court said today, citing a study which suggests expert witnesses are being used as “hired guns” by lawyers.’
Law Society's Gazette, 28th May 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘For those practitioners who thought that a positive decision from the Single Competent Authority as to whether a defendant was a victim of trafficking is admissible, having been settled since early 2020 with the Divisional Court decision in DPP v M [2020] EWHC 344 Admin, well…think again.’
Carmelite Chambers, 20th May 2021
Source: www.carmelitechambers.co.uk
‘The purpose of this judgment is to approve and formalise the local authority’s decision to withdraw its application for care orders, following receipt of medical evidence that the baby did not suffer any non-accidental injury. As the judge points out, the local authority acted correctly in taking proceedings when it did, on the basis of earlier medical evidence (now known to be mistaken), and has also acted correctly in asking the court to agree to end the proceedings on the basis of the new, more specialist, evidence.’
Transparency Project, 18th May 2021
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or in dissolution settlements. Since the business valuation may be the most significant component of the total matrimonial assets, it needs to be ascertained with care, normally with expert assistance, in order to achieve a fair division of family wealth on divorce.’
Family Law, 6th May 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Perrott v Hackney London Borough Council, 29 January 2021, Central London County Court and Perrott v Hackney London Borough Council, 29 January 2021, Central London County Court. Two linked s.204 appeals arising from Hackney’s finding that Mr Perrot was not vulnerable for the purposes of priority need – upheld on s.202 review – and Hackney’s decision to end the ‘relief duty’ under section 189B Housing Act 1996, also upheld on review.’
Nearly Legal, 18th April 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is difficult to know where to start with Towuaghantse v GMC [2021] EWHC 681 (Admin). I will give you a briefest account of the facts in a moment, but potentially Mostyn J’s judgment in this case stands as authority for the following principles:
a. The factual findings of a coroner, and any narrative conclusion, are all admissible against a registrant.
b. Authors of expert reports do not have to be independent in the sense of uninvolved with the institution or any of the players in a case, they are merely subject to a Porter v McGill style test of bias or apparent bias.
c. The capacity of a registrant to remediate sincerely should be judged by reference to evidence unconnected with their denials of the factual charges, unless the fact-finding decision included findings of blatant dishonesty by the registrant (a refinement of the same judge’s recent pronouncements in GMC v Awan [2020] EWHC 1553 (Admin)).’
2 Hare Court, 30th March 2021
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘In Jarman v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 323 (QB), the Claimant brought a claim against the Defendant hospital for failing to promptly diagnose Cauda Equina Syndrome (“CES”).’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 25th February 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The conjoined appeals in R v Byrne and ors. [2021] EWCA Crim 107 related to the safety of convictions arising from separate trials in which the Crown had instructed the same expert, Andrew Ager. Although the convictions were found to be safe, both Ager himself and the prosecution came in for stark criticism, particularly in light of previous high-profile failings in this area in R v Pabon [2018] EWCA Crim 420. The case provides the clearest reminder to all parties in criminal proceedings to ensure compliance with the requirements relating to expert evidence.’
6KBW College Hill, 17th February 2021
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘This hearing before MacDonald J was part of a wider private law dispute between parents regarding the children (P aged 6 and T aged 4) spending time with their father. A finding of fact hearing had already taken place, with a final hearing listed to commence on 21 December 2020. The original application from the father included a specific issue order, initially on MMR vaccination. This was then amended to vaccination in accordance with the NHS vaccination schedule.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 24th February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In MN v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 1746 the Court of Appeal considered several linked cases brought by victims of trafficking who had received negative Conclusive Grounds decisions.’
Garden Court Chambers, 17th February 2021
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Angus Bunyan reviews this week’s judgment in Byrne and others concerning the safety of a number of fraud convictions which relied on the evidence of a now discredited expert witness. Angus was prosecution trial counsel in one of the cases (leading Julia Faure Walker) and appeared for the Respondent on appeal. Narita Bahra QC was defence counsel in Sulley and others and appeared for two of the Appellants on appeal.’
2 Hare Court, 4th February 2021
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘In Knapman v Carbines [2020] EWHC 3586 (QB), HHJ Cotter QC considered the balancing exercise to be conducted upon a very late application to rely on an expert report.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 14th January 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has decided that the two-stage procedure provided for by the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) to determine whether a person is a victim of human trafficking, involving an initial decision on whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim, and a subsequent conclusive decision made on the balance of probabilities, complies with the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 (ECAT), Directive 2011/36 and article 4 of the ECHR. Two appellants (MN, an Albanian national, and IXU, a Nigerian national) appealed against the dismissal of their judicial review applications of decisions made by Home Office decision-makers that they were not victims of trafficking for the purposes of the NRM. The NRM sets out a two-stage identification procedure to determine whether someone was a victim of trafficking. A “Competent Authority”, a part of the Home Office, determines whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim. Then, in light of further consideration/investigation, the Competent Authority makes a conclusive decision. Conclusively established trafficking victims are entitled to support under the NRM. Some, but not all, of that support is available also to potential victims identified at the first stage. The Competent Authority made reasonable grounds determinations in favour of both MN and IXU but made conclusive decisions against them. Farbey J (MN) and Mr Philip Mott QC (IXU) dismissed the judicial review claims at first instance.’
EIN Blog, 21st January 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned the first decision in England and Wales to hold that an expert witness owed a fiduciary duty to their client.’
Litigation Futures, 13th January 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Domestic abuse victims are being wrongly charged over £150 by GPs for letters proving their injuries which are often required to access legal aid or other crucial services.’
The Independent, 7th January 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024