Overview

Expert evidence plays a critical and often decisive role in clinical negligence litigation, and the ability to assess such evidence is a core skill for litigators. This webinar examines the legal framework and case law governing the credibility and admissibility of expert witnesses in the clinical negligence context. It provides an in-depth analysis of how courts evaluate expert evidence at trial, with particular focus on the reasons why expert opinions are rejected and the factors that lead a trial judge to prefer one expert’s evidence over another. Drawing on practical examples, the webinar highlights common pitfalls and warning signs in expert evidence and offers guidance on how these issues can influence the outcome of a case.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to:

• Understand the rules and key case law governing expert evidence in clinical negligence claims
• Identify the consequences of non-compliance with CPR Part 35 and associated guidance
• Recognise situations where an individual may be found to be “not an expert at all” or acting outside their area of expertise
• Spot common “red flags” that undermine the credibility and reliability of expert evidence
• Analyse how courts approach closely balanced cases and what factors ultimately tip the balance
• Assess how aspects of an expert’s CV and professional background may affect judicial confidence in their evidence

Useful quotes

“I found Mr Morris’ evidence more helpful than Mr Walker’s. Mr Morris is a very experienced laser eye surgeon, having consented patients and performed over 10,000 procedures. Mr Walker is not a laser eye surgeon and has not conducted LASIK surgery. He was unable to opine based on his own personal experience. Instead, he relied on his experience as a general ophthalmic consultant and on his academic research.”

HHJ Baddeley in Lochrie -v- Edwards (County Court in Sheffield 07/01/2025),

” [the expert] was wholly unable to articulate the test to be applied in determining breach of duty in a clinical negligence case. He was given a number of opportunities to explain it; he was asked the question in different ways; that did not assist him. In the end, he stated that he did not know the test to be applied. The Claimant then had no real choice but to discontinue her claim…”