Mr. Justice Linden, during the deliverance of his judgement in the case of Farah v Abdullah & Others, made it abundantly clear that expert witnesses must expect their opinions to be closely scrutinised by the courts and be ready for a robust challenge.  Those experts who fail to survive that scrutiny can expect to be severely criticised.

The case in question was a personal injury action in which the claimant had been severely injured in an accident concerning two cars.  In the first instance, the claimant was knocked down by a car and thrown on to the bonnet of a second car.  He was then thrown of the bonnet of the second car and hit once again by the first car.  As a result of this, he suffered fractures and diffuse axonal injury.

The question of which injury had been suffered at which impact had to be resolved by the judge.

Two consultant neurosurgeons attended the court to assist with the diffuse axonal injury and before hearing the expert witness evidence, the judge stated that his assessment of the evidence given by the witnesses would include whether or not the evidence was given in good faith; whether the expert was responsible, competent and respectable i.e. not adopting an extreme position, able to make the necessary concessions and adhering to the spirit as well as the words of the duty to the court.  In addition, the expert evidence had to be tested against the whole of the evidence in the case.

One of the consultant neurosurgeons put forward a series of theories as to how the diffuse axonal injury could have been sustained, but in the view of the judge, none of those theories were sustainable when assessed against their own internal logic or against the rest of the evidence in the case. The judge also rejected that expert’s interpretation of the CCTV evidence and described his use of the literature and available studies as being superficial.  He added:

“I did not accept the evidence on the key issues in this case, not only because it did not accord with my view of the evidence and that of the other experts in the case, but also because I found him to be highly unreliable as a witness. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in a position to comment on his qualities as a doctor and do not do so. But…..I found his approach as a witness to be careless and partisan in a way which was inconsistent with his role and duties as an expert.”