A semantic tangle

David Burrows reports on the admittance of expert evidence in civil & family proceedings

When can an expert be called to assist the court (Supreme Court guidance)?
When can the civil courts give permission to put in expert evidence?
What—in reality—is the difference between expert evidence “reasonably required” or “necessary” to resolve proceedings; and does Scots law make any differences irrelevant?

In Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] All ER (D) 99 (Feb) the Supreme Court considered a Scottish negligence case where the claimant (English terminology will be used) relied upon a report from an expert (“skilled” in Scottish law) witness, in support of her claim. She said that her employers had not sufficiently protected her from injury—slipping on ice—in her job as a care assistant. The judge at first instance admitted the report, which commented on the facts of the circumstances of the fall, and on the extent of protection which could have been provided against it. The appellate court said he should not have admitted the report.

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

A semantic tangle

David Burrows reports on the admittance of expert evidence in civil & family proceedings

When can an expert be called to assist the court (Supreme Court guidance)?
When can the civil courts give permission to put in expert evidence?
What—in reality—is the difference between expert evidence “reasonably required” or “necessary” to resolve proceedings; and does Scots law make any differences irrelevant?

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?

Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle

NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children

A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings

NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown

A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996

Error message

A semantic tangle

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Switalskis—Grimsby

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury