A trial judge who rejects expert medical evidence must engage in a proper intellectual analysis of that evidence, identify the specific basis for rejection, and resolve controversies between competing expert opinions by reference to actual evidence rather than generalised conclusions. Where rejection of a medical professional's evidence has implications for professional integrity, more detailed reasoning is required. Expert witnesses should not be threatened with contempt for providing full answers that are not immediately responsive to questions; judicial guidance is the appropriate response. Parties who refuse to disclose information that would resolve an opponent's known misapprehension risk being deprived of costs for the relevant period as litigation misconduct.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.