header-logo header-logo

15 April 2016 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7694 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Witness headaches

001_nlj_7694_pamplin

Dr Chris Pamplin looks at what can happen if an expert witness is prevented from attending for bona fide reasons

It can be argued that in an adversarial justice system, natural justice demands that each party should have a fair and equal opportunity to test the witness evidence. But how far should this requirement be allowed to override more practical matters imposed on a busy and expensive court system? The court can order the attendance of a witness, but what if a witness is prevented from attending for bona fide reasons?

When an expert falls ill

Mr Justice Foskett pondered these matters in a High Court application in Robshaw v United Lincolnshire Hospital NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 923 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 21 (Apr). The court considered an application to adjourn a clinical negligence trial based on the defendant’s inability to cross-examine one of the claimant’s expert witnesses who was ill.

The claimant in the case had sought to rely on the expert evidence of a consultant paediatric neurologist (Dr F). Since the

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll