Tag Archives: 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 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 […]

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 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 […]

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 […]