Podcast Episode 7: Review of 2024 Podcast Episode 7: Review of 2024

Podcast Episode 7: Review of 2024

In the last podcast for 2024, we look back at the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over the course of 2024, and highlight the...
When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness

When expert evidence falls well below the standard of a competent expert witness

The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert...
The EWI to leave X The EWI to leave X

The EWI to leave X

The Expert Witness Institute has made the decision to discontinue its presence on X (formerly Twitter).
EWI Refreshes Core Training offering EWI Refreshes Core Training offering

EWI Refreshes Core Training offering

The Expert Witness Institute (EWI) is excited to announce a refresh of its core training offering.
A fundamentally dishonest claimant A fundamentally dishonest claimant

A fundamentally dishonest claimant

This case concerns a fundamentally dishonest claimant. The judge held that the experts in the case were reliant on self-reporting by the claimant, who...
Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Board is now engaging on its proposed Key Objectives. The Key Objectives represent the high-level outcomes that, once finalised, will guide the...
An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence

An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence

In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of...
Day in the Life of a Financial Expert Day in the Life of a Financial Expert

Day in the Life of a Financial Expert

Uwe Wystup is a practitioner in the field of foreign exchange options, as well as a senior academic, trainer, and judge. He is the founder of...
Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

In the 6th Episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon talks with retired Barrister and expert witness trainer, Giles Eyre, who is retiring as an EWI...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...

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.

Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)
Priya Vaidya 2128

Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)

byPriya Vaidya

Nature of case: This was a case of a gastrointestinal illness suffered on holiday and one in which the evidence of an expert witness, Professor Hugh Pennington, was the only expert evidence that had been admitted. As his evidence was not controverted, the judge relied on it. The case was put on the basis that Professor Pennington’s report was bare ipse dixit or otherwise so deficient as to have entitled the court to reject it. The issue for the court was the proper approach of a court towards expert evidence which is “uncontroverted” and the court found that the judge was not entitled to reject the report because of its perceived deficiencies

 

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.