Category Credibility of experts

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY

This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year.  As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS FROM LAST YEAR Proportionality will remain a big (and largely unresolved) issue. The meaning of […]

PROVING THINGS 39: YOU CAN SPEND £10 MILLION IN COSTS AND STILL NOT PROVE YOUR CASE: DAMAGES CLAIM WAS A “NOTIONAL DESKTOP EXERCISE”

It is unusual to look at the substantive judgment in a case after examining the decision on costs. We have already looked at the cost judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496. However the substantive judgment, at [2016] EWHC 2856 (TCC) fits well within the proving things series.  It is […]

THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: BEWARE YE THE PARTISAN EXPERT: “UNBALANCED AND HIGHLY MISLEADING”

Some types of litigation are heavily reliant upon expert evidence.  Clinical negligence cases are often determined by the judge’s assessment of the experts involved.  It is disturbing to see the matters raised in  judgment today of His Honour Peter Hughes (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) in Watts -v- The Secretary of State […]

PROVING THINGS 36: CREDIBILITY & CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS: WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND ANIMALS

One of my colleagues tweeted that the judgment in Harris -v-Miller [2016] EWHC 2438 (QB) was “short on the law and long on the facts”. This is a correct assessment. The case  shows just how important the facts are in most (if not all) litigation.  Most litigation involves a dispute on the facts and not […]

JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF WHICH EXPERT IS PREFERRED

There is a short passage in the judgment in Barclays Bank PLC -v- Christie Owen & Davies Limited [2016] EWHC 2351 (Ch) which considers the appropriate approach of the court when considering expert evidence. “To consider simply whether to prefer one expert over the other is not the correct approach. The Court should make a […]

PROVING THINGS 28: MAKE UNWARRANTED PERSONAL ATTACKS AND USE A “MUD-SLINGING” EXPERT: THAT ALWAYS ENDS WELL

The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Scott -v- E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting & Civil Engineering Ltd [2016] 1949 (TCC) contains some surprising observations. It also contains important lessons in relation to “conspiracy” theories in litigation and the role of the expert in litigation. “Mrs Scott had to deal in her cross examination with something of […]

THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 2: EXPERTS, OH EXPERTS.

This is the second in the series of posts on the  judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages. Here we look at the expert evidence.  The judge was clear in his criticisms of the experts called […]