header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 July 2022 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7989 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Rules? What rules? The non-compliant expert

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
89130
Experts must comply with the fundamental duty to assist the court, says Mark Solon
  • A look at the recent case of Pal v Damen and another, where the claim was for clinical negligence arising from an operation.
  • Master David Cook said the expert’s report lacked substance and did not comply with the CPR.

As well as being an expert in a particular field, following the rules of how to act as an expert is essential. An expert who failed to follow even the basic requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules Part 35 did not impress Master David Cook in Pal v Damen and another [2022] EWHC 4697 (QB). The decision reiterates the need for experts to follow the required form of a court compliant report. The report can indicate if an expert has complied with the fundamental duty to assist the court and consequentially the weight given to the opinion proffered.

The claimant brought an action for clinical negligence arising from an operation conducted in Belgium. The defendants

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll