Jonathan Lindfield of our Personal Injury team considers the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Griffiths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48 concerning “uncontroverted” expert evidence and the practical implications of the decision in day-to-day litigation.
The Supreme Court today handed down its long-awaited judgment in the case of Griffths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48. It is a thorough, important, and helpful statement (or, depending on one’s view, re-statement) of the laws and rules of evidence, what must be put to a witness before that evidence can be challenged in closing submissions, and the limits on any Judge’s power to dismiss relevant evidence which has not been challenged (or challenged sufficiently) at trial. At the heart of the judgment is the Court’s assessment of what it means for the parties to have a fair trial.
To view this article, please see here.
Jonathan is an experienced, sought-after, specialist personal injury barrister, whose practice encompasses all aspects of personal injury litigation. He regularly acts for both claimants and defendants on the fast and multi-track, in claims worth up to £1m. From straightforward liability disputes to complex causation issues, his caseload often involves claims with multiple expert disciplines. He is frequently asked to advise and act on cases where fundamental dishonesty or exaggeration is alleged. Read more here.