EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 112
Two Ltd [2010] EWCH 318 (TCC) the Court made
clear that where an allegation of negligence is to be
pleaded, that allegation must be supported by a relevant professional with the necessary expertise. The
Claimant’s pleaded allegations of negligence were not
supported by expert evidence such that Claimant
could not pass the Bolam test.
Comment
This case is a helpful reminder that when drafting
pleadings (or responding to them), it is important for
them to be concise, accurately drafted, supported by
evidence from experts in the appropriate discipline
and have a legal basis for a claim. Pleaded allegations
must be Pantelli compliant otherwise you may be on
the receiving end of a strike out application, which of
course has costs consequences.
One of the key issues that caused difficulties at the
hearing was the reference to ‘technical execution’ and
the question of whether fitting the dentures, falls
within its definition. The District Judge concluded that
the technical execution of the dentures includes what
the Third Defendant did at the fitting appointment.
The Claimant’s breach of duty expert had confirmed
in Responses to Part 35 Questions that the care
provided by the Third Defendant at the fitting
appointment was reasonable.
This case demonstrates importance of a thorough
examination of expert evidence, ensuring that any
clarification points are raised with and dealt with by
the expert. The case also shows how carefully drafted
Part 35 questions seeking clarification of expert evidence can be useful as these formed the basis of the
strike out Application.
This was a pleasing outcome of our client (Dental
Protection) and their members.
The Claimant had reasonable time to examine their
expert evidence and the Claimant’s expert could have
easily provided the necessary clarifications.
The case handler at Dental Protection states:
"We are committed to protecting and supporting the
professional interests of our members, and we are
pleased with this positive outcome. This case serves as
a reminder of how important proper analysis of expert evidence is in clinical negligence claims."
The Claimant’s claim was struck out in accordance
with CPR 3.4 as demonstrating no reasonable
grounds for bringing the claim against the Third Defendant. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Third
Defendants’ costs in the action with the Court considering that the costs fall within the exceptions to QOCS
pursuant to CPR 44.15.
Authors:
Louise Jackson, Partner
Katie Everson, Associate
www.clydeco.com
Mr Dawson is a Consultant Urologist with over 28 years’ experience.
He has formal training in personal injury and medical negligence reporting
and completed the Bond Solon Expert Witness Course in 2006. In 2008
he completed a Diploma in Law at the College of Law in Birmingham.
Mr Dawson has over 21 years of medico legal report writing and expert
witness work and has completed over 1950 reports, He has completed
numerous Fitness to Practise reports for the General Medical Council.
He is the author of the ABC of Urology, now in its 3rd edition, and also co-edited the Evidence
for Urology which won first prize in the urology section of the BMA Medical Book Competition
in 2005.
Mr Dawson is happy to accept instructions for personal injury, clinical negligence and
condition and prognosis reports.
M: 07711 584939
E: expertwitness@chrisdawson.org.uk
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
110
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
