In the latest podcast from the Clinical Negligence group at No5 Barristers’ Chambers, David Tyack, Charlotte Robinson-Jones, Andrew Rhodes, and Neil Shastri-Hurst discuss Bradfield-Kay v Cope [2020] EWHC 1352 (QB), a case which raises interesting points on the issue of expert evidence. The case of Bradfield-Kay v Cope highlights the importance of ensuring an expert’s evidence and reasoning is thoroughly tested. Whilst, on the face of it, a court may be drawn towards an expert with more specialist knowledge and experience, the importance of ensuring the logical basis of their reasoning cannot be understood. In the course of the podcast, the panel will be discussing how an accepted practice amongst practitioner will not always represent a defence and a court will be willing to challenge the rationale if it appears contradictory.