This judgment appears to provide some clarity on an issue about which seemingly conflicting advice is given to experts. It concerns the listing of documents and materials. 

Brown v Sterne [2025] NIMaster 15

This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out following a stroke. The court considered a number of relevant publications.

For experts in psychiatry and psychology, it is important as it illustrates how the court tests evidence in cases involving performance validity testing.

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB) 

One of the important differences between Ireland and other British Isles jurisdictions is in the procedures followed in personal injury litigation. This case is illustrative. If the plaintiff had brought his case in England or Wales, how would this case have progressed?

Keogh v O'Keeffe [2025] IEHC 26

A mother applied to set aside what she submitted were findings made five years ago by a district judge concerning the party’s two children in reliance upon a report prepared by Ms G. The court found that there was no doubt at all that the harm that Ms G put forward arose, in her view, from what she regarded as the mother’s behaviour in alienating the children. Ms G had carried out an assessment of the mother which included her own attachment and other behaviours, but that did not form a finding of fact about how the mother actually behaved. Therefore there were no findings with a solid foundation that the mother alienated the children even though the judge expressed it as such, and accordingly no findings to actually set aside.

It is not easy to appreciate the significance of this judgment for experts in general without reading the summary so the ‘Commentary’ is at the end. The neuropsychological test results are perhaps not of particular interest to psychologists and psychiatrists at this stage in the proceedings but may become so if the case does not settle and it goes to trial. 

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

The appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He appealed against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge who dismissed his appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse his protection claim. The appellant raised three grounds of appeal including that the Judge failed to properly take into account the medical evidence.The Upper Tribunal found that it was clear from the Tribunal Judge's decision that he rejected the medical evidence in a comprehensive and detailed way. This was not, contrary to the grounds of appeal, the Judge ignoring the medical evidence when he was making his credibility findings. As such the Tribunal found that the Judge did not materially err as advanced, and his decision stands.

JK v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2024003446

There are some general learning points for all experts but otherwise this is for neurosurgeons. It is another road traffic accident personal injury case in which the court needed the assistance of neurosurgeons, or at least it would have done but for the fact that it made a finding which made it unnecessary to consider the neurosurgical evidence before reaching a judgment. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant were not in dispute. What was in dispute, but ultimately irrelevant, was what the child’s injuries would have been if the driver of the vehicle had been driving (non-negligently) at a lower speed than he was. It was on this point that the neurosurgical experts disagreed.

MW v Wilkinson [2025] EWHC 2300 (KB) 

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

This is an important judgment for obstetricians as it shows in precise detail how the court, relying on not just the experts’ evidence but a critical analysis of the literature on which they relied, decided whether the claimant would have avoided developing HELLP had she been advised to take 75 mg aspirin at 12 (or 14) weeks instead of at 23. Twelve publications were put under the microscope and considered also in the light of research concerning the relative value of aggregate data and individual participant data.

Although the issue in this case was the prevention of HELLP, it may be an important judgment to consider in pre-eclampsia cases.

De Francisci v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (County Court, Basingstoke sitting at Southampton, 9 May 2024) Case No: F16YM828

There have been a number of cases illustrating how fractures are dated. This case illustrates the dating of haemorrhages as well as fractures. The judge’s structure of her judgment enables the reader to see how the analysis of the evidence of the various experts allowed her to find as fact how many incidents of non-accidental injury there were and when they occurred as well as with what force. Although there are no extracts from the experts’ reports or evidence, the judgment illustrates how properly presented expert medical evidence can assist the court in cases of suspected non-accidental injury. The dating of injuries can be of critical importance in cases, as here, where there was more than one potential perpetrator. 

London Borough of Y v M [2025] EWFC 232 (B)