header-logo header-logo

25 October 2024 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 8091 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Personal injury , Damages
printer mail-detail

The credulity of experts

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll