Case Updates

Clicking on one of the topics below will display case updates relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify case updates.

Expert evidence in judicial review proceedings
Case Updates

Expert evidence in judicial review proceedings

The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration.  

MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)

Lost in translation
Case Updates

Lost in translation

In this patent case, the judge noted that neither expert was a native English speaker and both had difficulties with questions put to them during cross-examination. The misstep of one expert over the word “buckling”, which he had used in his report, and his use of a translator during cross-examination for reference, led the judge to approach his written evidence with a degree of caution.

Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited [2025] EWHC 497 (Pat)

Kohler Mira Limited v Norcros Group (Holdings) Limited [2024] EWHC 3247 (Ch)
Case Updates

Kohler Mira Limited v Norcros Group (Holdings) Limited [2024] EWHC 3247 (Ch)

The judge preferred the evidence of the Claimant's expert because of the Defendant's expert’s approach to his task as expert, his confusion over the proper approach to what prior art was and was not in the common general knowledge, the number of assertions he made which he was forced to resile from as incorrect, and his failure to acknowledge a key fact.

Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)
Case Updates

Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)

The judge found that the forensic accounting expert’s approach of forming an opinion as to the value of the Company, then carrying out a detailed calculation and only if it matches his initial opinion accepting it, undermined the credibility and reliability of his opinion as to the value of the Company.

JXX v Scott Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO)
Case Updates

JXX v Scott Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO)

In considering whether the claimant should be required to provide a breakdown of expert and medical agency fees, the judge decided to offer the claimant the option of either providing the breakdown of expert and medical reporting organisation fees, to enable an assessment of work of both the expert and the MRO, or not providing that information and having the expert fees assessed on the hypothetical basis that there was no medical reporting organisation involved.

RSS
12345