This site uses cookies.

Truth, Lies, Exaggeration and the Judicial Crucible: A Reminder of Judicial Independence in Assessing Expert Evidence - Liam Ryan, 7 Bedford Row

01/11/17. Published on the 12th October 2017, the case of Fletcher v Keatley [2017] EWCA Civ 1540 reaffirms in my opinion three broad points and areas of concern for practitioners who deal with personal injury litigation involving psychiatric injuries where the evidence before a Court demonstrates inconsistency.

Firstly, the well documented and discussed difficulties that are inherent when assessing and quantifying a psychiatric injury that cannot by its very nature be objectively verified. Secondly the need and right for parties to be able to interrogate, and call their own expert evidence on the extent of such an injury and the inevitable evidential conflicts created by the disparity of opinion which will require litigation to resolve. Thirdly, the ever-present danger of dishonest Claimants who seek to exploit the fact that a psychiatric injury cannot be independently and objectively verified, and exaggerate or fabricate their symptoms for commercial gain, damaging and tarnishing hundreds of other genuine Claimants through guilt by association...

Image cc David Dixon

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...