Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This case referred to a circumstance more commonly, or perhaps seldom otherwise, encountered in the Technology and Construction Court. 

This case is about whether the judge erred in finding that Ms Soophia Khan had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. This is an important judgment for any psychiatrist called upon to assess fitness to plead and stand trial in a criminal case or litigation capacity in a civil case; and important also for any psychologist whose evidence may be considered in such a case. It is not just because it compares the tests for fitness to plead and stand trial and litigation capacity; it is a rare illustration of not only how a judge at first instance assesses expert evidence in such a case but also of how the court of appeal analyses the judicial reasoning when such a case is appealed.

Although accepting the medical expert's conclusion on the First Defendant's capacity to appear in court, the Bailiff noted that any further application for an adjournment on health grounds would require a much more significant explanation of the First Defendant's medical history, and precise problems and prognosis, to be provided well in advance.

Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi and Ors [2024] JRC 086

The court could see no basis on which the plaintiffs could seek to rely on any agreement reached between the experts as to the underlying facts.

Nolan v Dildar Ltd (Approved) [2024] IEHC 4 

For accident reconstruction, emergency medicine and neurosurgery experts, this case illustrates the interdependence of accident reconstruction and medical evidence and the need for the medical experts to have regard to the accident reconstruction evidence.

Colizzi v Coulson [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)

The report of an expert in psychiatry was undermined by his acceptance of the appellent's account which, unbeknown to him, a previous tribunal had found to lack credibility. The court also attached less weight to the expert's assessment than it did to a hospital letter because the assessment had been conducted remotely.

Chahal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2024001451

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)

This is an important case because it corrects a misunderstanding about the test for capacity. There has been an established view that the Mental Capacity Act contains a ‘belief’ requirement. That is wrong.

Hemachandran v Thirumalesh [2024] EWCA Civ 896

The experts in this case appear to have set out a joint statement in the form of a Scott schedule. Unfortunately one of the experts used his column to set out lengthy texts and seemingly seeking to use the statement as a Trojan horse by which to introduce evidence that the court has excluded.

Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd & Anor v Ruhan & Anor [2024] EWHC 1263 (Comm)