11 July Case Updates GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187 Single joint expert, 11. Report Writing, 09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 12. Responding to questions, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Daniels v. Walker After considering the report from the Single Joint Expert, the Wife in financial remedy proceedings attempted unsuccessfully to make a Daniels v Walker application to adduce evidence from her solely instructed expert. The judge set out the law on Daniels v Walker before applying it to the specifics of the case.
9 July Case Updates The Single Joint Expert and Lord Woolf's staggered approach case management, 06. Rules and Regulations, 09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 12. Responding to questions, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Daniels v. Walker When an SJE has been appointed, but one of the parties wishes to rely on their own evidence, the court should follow the staggered approach recommended by Lord Woolf in Daniels v. Walker. John Seneschall v Trisant Foods Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1380 (Ch)
4 July Case Updates When lawyers interfere with a Joint Statement TCC Guide, Civil Procedure Rules, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements The claimants were seeking permission to change their expert after their solicitors admitted they did not comply with applicable rules and guidance on experts' joint statements. Jenni Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC)
27 June Case Updates G (A Child: Care Order) (Complex Developmental Needs) (No.2) [2023] EWFC 218 (B) Single joint expert, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Family Procedure Rules, FPR, Expert anonymity, Parenting capacity, remote attendance, Independent social worker, CVP An expert must read and engage with any judgments which form part of their instructions.
25 June Case Updates MB v KB [2023] EWHC 3177 (Fam) 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Family Procedure Rules, FPR 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.
20 June Case Updates Lendlease Construction (Europe) Ltd v Aecom Ltd (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2620 (TCC) Independence, Duties of the Expert, 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence 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.
18 June Case Updates IXF, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police [2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin) Psychiatry, Disability, 11. Report Writing, Equality Act 2010 An expert opinion must be supported by reasoning and correctly apply the relevant legal tests.
13 June Case Updates Secretary of State for the Home Department v Bal [2023] UKAITUR UI2023001885 Psychology, Psychiatry, Duties of the Expert, Expertise, 11. Report Writing, Asylum and immigration, Country experts The report of the psychiatrist expert witness strayed outside his expertise. It did not show any clear independent knowledge, demonstrate that that he was a country expert, or provide supporting source material.
11 June Case Updates M v N (Approved) [2023] IEHC 759 Ireland, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, Voice of the Child This case update gives useful guidance on preparing a 'voice of the child' report.
6 June Case Updates The Cahill v Seepersad [2023] IEHC 583 Expert evidence, Independence, Duties of the Expert, Ireland, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 16. Criticism and Complaints The cout found that a financial expert's report was inadmissible as evidence because he was not properly independent or objective, while very little weight could be attributed to the report of an employment expert because he lacked expertise in the area in which he purported to give expert evidence.