Case Updates

This case is primarily of interest to obstetricians, illustrating the court’s approach to the disputed interpretation of cardiotocographic evidence. There were no midwifery issues as such, but it may be of some interest to midwifery experts. The general learning points speak for themselves without reading the summary.

Woods v Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 1432 (KB)

The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth. There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just jointly appointed experts in the Family Court.

Re M (A Child) (Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas) [2024] EWFC 209 (B)

The judge noted that that the manner in which two Expert Witnesses in Chartered Surveying gave their evidence was more advocacy than opinion, with one expert’s report reading more like a skeleton argument.

The claimants mounted an attack in cross-examination on the expertise and competence of an expert in Old Age Psychiatry. 

This successful appeal against a Family Court judgment which led to the removal of two children from the care of their parents turned primarily on the fact that the judge was found to have acted as her own expert and conducted her own analysis of the medical research material making findings that were not supported by evidence. For paediatricians, radiologists, neurosurgeons and ophthalmologists this is highly recommend reading about the courts’ analysis of expert evidence relating to abusive head trauma and low level falls.    

A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest.

The medico-legal expert in this personal injury claim was urged by the judge to seek further training after he made all of the three most common compliance errors which the EWI sees in expert reports.

Hamed v. Ministry of Justice (County Court in Cambridge – 7th June 2024)

An expert must read and engage with any judgments which form part of their instructions. 

An expert report did not address all of the questions posed in the letter of instruction, reformulated other questions, and failed to comply with FPR Part 25 in a number of important ways, while the expert witness's oral evidence failed to provide an impartial expert view. 

An expert is entitled to revise his or her opinion in light of a judge's finding as to what is or is not required in order to comply with particular regulations or equivalent regulatory standards.