Cases - Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority

Record details

Name

Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority

Date

[1985]

Citation

1 AII ER 635, HL

Keywords

Expert witness

Summary

In a medical negligence case the House of Lords considered the role of an appellate court in reviewing the conclusions of the trial judge on the evidence of expert witnesses. They approved the approach taken in Whitehouse v Jordan to the effect that the advantages of the trial judge in seeking and hearing the witnesses must always at least be respected. The advantages of a trial judge were also considered by the Court of Appeal.

The House of Lords stated that the relevant principles remain that

'... an appellate court, if disposed to come to a different conclusion from the trial judge on the printed evidence, should not do so unless satisfied that the advantage enjoyed by him of seeing and hearing the witnesses is not sufficient to explain or justify his conclusion. But if the appellate court is satisfied that he has not made a proper use of his advantage, "the matter will then become at large for the appellate court"'.

In this case, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords were satisfied that the judge had not fully understood the expert evidence in reaching his conclusions on the negligence allegations.