Category Experts

PROVING THINGS 47: FIRE IN THE LOFT: IT WASN’T THE MOUSE MAN AT ALL

The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) is another example of a claimant failing to prove their case. More curiously, in some respects, the claimant’s own evidence contradicted their case. “In circumstances where there are a number of potential causes of a fire, it is not appropriate for the […]

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 46: LATE THEORIES ADVANCED BY EXPERTS RARELY HELP

Some aspects of litigation are highly reliant upon experts.  Medical causation is on of those areas.  The issues between experts should be clarified in the joint statement.  In Smith -v- Tesco PLC & Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 3252 (QB) David Pittaway QC considered a case in which an expert raised a […]

PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK

A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages.  This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker in Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB). After a six day trial the claimants […]

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS IN PATENT CASES: SHOULD BE SHORT AND FAIR

In his judgment today in Merck Sharp and Dhome Limited -v- Shionig & Co Limited [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat) Mr Justice Arnold made some observations about the cross-examination of expert witnesses. These related to experts in patent cases, they are also of more general interest. “… in my experience too much time is spent by […]

THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)

The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for the parties to co-operate on the nature and scope of expert evidence. “In my judgment […]

IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…

There have been many occasions on this blog where I have commented on expert evidence. The links below show many cases where experts have caused major problems (usually for the party instructing them). There are numerous reports of cases where an expert has gone awry, sometimes badly awry (on one occasion the expert simply fled […]