Pacemaker PTSD? Pacemaker PTSD?

Pacemaker PTSD?

This is primarily a case for cardiologists, cardiac nurses and anaesthetists with a learning point for psychiatric experts. Viewed from outside the...
Advising as to the applicable law Advising as to the applicable law

Advising as to the applicable law

The detail of this judgment is for experts who conduct capacity assessments. Two points arise of more general interest. First, the expert, who had...
Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s...
Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related...
EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub...

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.

Kirk v Culina Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 1431 (KB)
Case Updates

Kirk v Culina Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 1431 (KB)

The court considered that there was some substance to the criticisms of an accident and emergency expert for not dealing with matters in his primary report which he then agreed in the joint report with the opposing expert (who had included the issues in his primary report). These were however criticisms for failing to deal with points, rather than criticisms of the opinions he actually expressed in his primary report.