A judge has given an excoriating assessment of experts instructed in a personal injury case which was described as having failed ‘by a long way’.

His Honour Judge Gallagher, sitting at Canterbury County Court in Clark v Skyfire Insurance Company Limited, said the claimant had ‘not come within a country mile’ of establishing her claim. The judge did not suggest that claimant had been fundamentally dishonest, but instead blamed two experts instructed to prove her case as well as the claimant's solicitors, who were not named in the judgment.

One report, said the judge, was ‘worse than useless’; it was ‘abundantly clear’ that one of the experts had not considered her duties as required in civil procedure rules.

The court heard that the claim was brought following – in the judge’s words – a ‘very minor’ collision in a Waitrose car park in Hawkhurst, Kent, in 2021.

The claimant’s case included a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder, despite her admission that she did not believe at the time she had suffered any serious injuries. Her solicitors instructed a counselling psychologist, whose background was in traumatic events involving death or threat of death, which ‘could not be more different’ from the experiences of the claimant.

The judge found it ‘extraordinary in the extreme’ that psychological symptoms were not mentioned in the claim notification form and were brought up only in a subsequent expert report. The claim notification form also stated that the claimant had not sought any medical attention at the time of the accident, despite saying later she had suffered a whiplash injury. She suggested she had called her GP but this was not recorded by her solicitors.

The court heard that the claimant was under the false impression that another expert instructed to produce a report – this time a physiotherapist – was a medical doctor. She referred to the expert as a doctor in her witness statement, which was drafted by a solicitor.

The judge said: ‘You have got to ask yourself was it negligence, was it stupidity, was it dishonesty? I am not in a position to make a final judgment, but it certainly was, however one looks at it, deceptive, as far as the court is being concerned. And, in my judgment, that use of the term doctor, as I observed in the middle of the evidence, was a thoroughly misleading appellation to use.’

He added it was ‘literally unbelievable’ that the expert had managed to pinpoint the extent of the claimant’s injuries through a 20-minute phone consultation. This was particularly as there were no notes of what was said in the meeting.

Gallagher saved the ‘worst to the last’ as he noted how the expert’s references were affixed to her report. All five were dated to years before she was qualified. In cross-examination she blamed software for bringing up the wrong dates, evidence which was rejected by the judge.

The claim was dismissed.

Following the ruling, handed down in November, defendant firm HF said that a copy of the judgment has been referred to Medco Healthcare professionals Council and the Chartered Institute of Physiotherapists to consider an investigation.