header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 October 2024 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 8091 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Personal injury , Damages
printer mail-detail

The credulity of experts

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
194044
Dr Chris Pamplin looks at a shocking case in which experts failed to spot the claimant’s exaggerations
  • Experts should not assume the people with whom they interact are fundamentally honest.
  • Covers Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Limited.
  • Warns experts not to lose sight of causation and to say which complaints are caused by the tort, which are not, and which they can’t establish either way.

Most experts might assume that when taking instructions, the people with whom they interact are fundamentally honest. As was demonstrated in the recent case of Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Limited [2024] EWHC 806 (KB), [2024] All ER (D) 44 (Apr), there are dangers for experts who make this assumption.

The claimant had suffered a traumatic brain injury when she fell from Aberavon Pier. The pier was found to have been insufficiently guarded by railings. The defendant admitted liability. However, while settling the level of damages, the court found the claimant had greatly inflated the value of her claim.

Under

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll