In the first of a two-part analysis, Margaret Heathcote sets out the changes to expert evidence introduced earlier this year and the impact seen to date ‘What is ‘necessary’ in care proceedings (the conclusion of which may mean the removal of a child from their birth parents) is likely to differ from what is necessary …
Continue reading "Expert Evidence: Out of necessity"
This post is only available to members.
Robert Weir QC explains the significance of the first High Court decision to consider as a preliminary issue what provisions governed the instruction of experts ‘Rome II provides a set of rules to permit a court to determine what the applicable law is to the claim in tort.’ Rome II is an instrument for harmonising …
Continue reading "Evidence and Procedure: Getting to grips with the substance/procedure divide under Rome II"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2012 #117The applicants (R and J) made a wasted costs application against the respondent solicitors (H) in the context of proceedings known as D v R (Deputy of S) and S [2010] EWHC 2405 (CoP), which had been heard by Henderson J in the Court of Protection concerning S. R was S’s daughter and his deputy. She had brought proceedings in the Chancery Division in S’s name to recover property S had given away to D on the basis of undue influence. S’s wish was that D should retain the property given to her. In that context, D applied for a declaration from the Court of Protection that ...
Gary Lawrenson considers the impact of Jones v Kaney ‘In the Supreme Court, the majority decision, led by Lord Phillips, removed experts’ immunity against claims by their clients. Experts can now be sued for breach of contract or professional negligence in relation to their participation in legal proceedings.’In Jones v Kaney [2011] the Supreme Court …
Continue reading "Expert Evidence: Nowhere to hide"
This post is only available to members.
