header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Experts need to know their limits

28 January 2022
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Expert Witness , Costs
printer mail-detail
70030
Recent caselaw has found third party costs orders being made against experts in clinical negligence litigation

Writing in this week’s NLJ, David Locke and Giles Colin highlight the message the courts are sending that experts must only accept instructions on matters within their specialist areas of expertise.

Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, and Colin, barrister at 1 Crown Office Row, review the court decisions and the warnings they convey to expert witnesses and those who instruct them. They note that ‘all clinical negligence practitioners will be readily able to provide anecdotal examples of experts pushing the limits of acceptability. The most typical examples will be of long-since retired experts continuing to provide opinions in relation to events occurring since their time in clinical practice ended’. 

Issue: 7964 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Expert Witness , Costs
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll