Is baldness a disease? Is baldness a disease?

Is baldness a disease?

Mr Simon Britten, immediate past chair of the British Orthopaedic Association Medico-legal Committee, in his foreword to the forthcoming Expert...
Ivan Norman v N & CJ Horton Property (a firm) [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) Ivan Norman v N & CJ Horton Property (a firm) [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch)

Ivan Norman v N & CJ Horton Property (a firm) [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch)

The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if...
Navigating the excessive difference in valuations from  two Expert Quantity Surveyors Navigating the excessive difference in valuations from two Expert Quantity Surveyors

Navigating the excessive difference in valuations from two Expert Quantity Surveyors

The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors.  Both sides approached their instructions to their...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

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

GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187
Sean Mosby 750

GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187

bySean Mosby

Summary

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. 

Learning points

Learning points for instructing parties:

  • Consider the need for a Daniels v Walker application as early as possible. An application made just before the final hearing date is much less likely to succeed,
  • The application should seek to address the non-exhaustive factors set out by the judge in this case,
  • The application is more likely to succeed if there is time before the final hearing for a meeting between the SJE and the proposed expert, as well as for the other party to effectively challenge the proposed new expert evidence and seek and obtain permission for their own solely instructed expert,
  • The application is more likely to succeed if the differences between the SJE and the proposed new expert are relatively significant and would be likely to have a material impact on proceedings.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.