Expert evidence must be utilised carefully, particularly during remote hearings, as Richard Boyle and James Yapp explain
It will, hopefully, not surprise readers that supportive expert evidence is needed to succeed in clinical negligence claims. However, not all litigants are quite so savvy, as demonstrated by two high court decisions last year: Quaatey v Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 1296 (QB) and Magee v Willmott  EWHC 1378 (QB).
In Quaatey, the particulars of claim were described as repetitive, with no logical structure. The master was concerned they were drafted without expert evidence, which would be abusive as per Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd  3189 (TCC), and ordered the claimant to confirm she had supportive exper...
Temple Garden Chambers