B Mahendra reports on the recent cases involving elementary faults, conflicts of interest and causation
Given that expert evidence has fea-tured for centuries in the English legal system it is surprising that some simple and glaring errors are still made or found in the courts.
unproduced evidence
In Breeze v Ahmed [2005] EWCA Civ 233, [2005] All ER (D) 134 (Mar), the facts involved allegations of clinical negligence against a GP. It was claimed that the GP had not properly examined a patient who had presented with chest pains; had he done so the patient’s heart attack might have been detected and his life saved. At trial, the judge had preferred the opinion of the expert for the defence who said even if the defendant GP had carried out a competent examination, with rapid admission to hospital following that examination, the patient would still have died.
The defence expert said recent medical literature supported his views, a fact that appears to have impressed the judge. The problem was that the defence expert had not produced this evidence. The judge therefore had not seen
