0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Austen v Oxford City Council

24 June 2002
The issues

Expert evidence – joint experts – cross-examination – oral evidence.

The facts

The Claimant suffered an accident at work and sued. Liability was not in issue. The Claimant suffered a soft tissue injury as a result of the accident but also a question arose as to whether fibromyalgia from which he suffered had been caused by the accident. Orthopaedic evidence conflicted on the issue. A joint psychiatric report had been obtained which was unfavourable to the Claimant. An Application to cross-examine the expert was made at Trial. The County Court Judge refused that Application. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Judge had wrongly failed to take account of the fact that the Claimant had rejected the report and that it was not a report on which both parties were relying.

2. He had not taken account of the fact that it was for him and not the Psychiatrist to decide whether the Claimant was genuine.

3. He was wrong to conclude that there was no material on which the psychiatric expert could be cross-examined.

4. The Judge had power to order cross examination, but it would have been preferable for the Application not to have been made at Trial, but for the request to have been made at an earlier stage for a second expert to have been appointed.

5. Appeal allowed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up