Jones v. TUI
14th October 2020
Anthony Johnson represented the Claimant in the successful dismissal of the Defendant’s appeal against the dismissal of its Application to Strike Out a General Surgeon’s evidence in relation to diagnosis on causation in a travel sickness claim on the basis that it was inadmissible due to numerous criticisms of the contents of the expert’s written report and Part 35 Responses.
HHJ Barkley accepted Mr. Johnson’s fundamental contention that issues of the nature that had been raised by the Defendant went to the weight that could be attached to the expert’s evidence, rather than to its admissibility per se. Any issues that the Defendant wished to take with regards to the expert’s methodology could be dealt with by submissions at Trial, rather than by ruling his evidence inadmissible and leaving the Claimant unable to rely upon his evidence summarily.
The Judge accepted that the expert in question could properly be considered as such based upon his clinical experience and research. He believed that there was nothing in the extensive authorities that had been referred to by both sides that narrowed down the test to the level of specificity that had been put forward by the Defendant. He found that the expert “had enough of the relevant knowledge and experience to take him beyond the threshold whereby he can interpret and rely on published medical material to inform his own opinion.”
The Judgment can be viewed here.