Expert Witness for Personal Injury and Court of Protection
JE Bennett Law have quickly become an in-demand name as expert witness solicitors for personal injury and court of protection cases. Due to her experience and reputation in the field, our founder Jane Bennett regularly acts as an expert witness for Claimant and Defendants. Typically these are with respect to catastrophic personal injury litigation cases and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims regarding:
- the Court of Protection
- the role of a professional deputy
- the costs associated with running professional deputyships
Why Choose JE Bennett Law For Expert Witness Work?
Jane has become a “Go To” expert for a number of leading national defendant catastrophic personal injury firms, endorsed by leading national road traffic insurance companies.
Our base in Tunbridge Wells, Kent is well positioned for London and the south east and we are happy to take work across the UK.
What Our Expert Witness Clients Say
Our Expert Witness Team
Jane Bennett
Managing Partner
Jane Bennett is 1 (of just 62) of the Office of the Public Guardian appointed Panel Deputies link
Jemma Cahan
Senior Associate
Jemma Cahan has 15 years’ experience working with injured clients since qualifying as a clinical negligence solicitor in 2008. She has extensive brain injury deputyship experience link
Alexandra Edwards
Partner
Alexandra acts as a professional deputy and has extensive brain injury deputyship experience link
CASE EXAMPLES
CASE 1
The deputy involved in the case had included a lot of litigation-related time in addition to Litigation Friend-related time and was seeking to claim all such costs in their annual general management Bills of Costs. Jane successfully challenged those in her report when acting for the Defendant as the expert witness.
CASE 2
The deputy produced assessed Bills of Costs which were seen by both the Claimant and Defendant COP experts and Jane successfully challenged a lot of time that had been duplicated with the case manager and work that was properly pertinent to health and welfare
aspects not those related to financial deputyship. Not surprisingly, the bills were heavily marked down by the SCCO and so COP costs for future years were significantly reduced following Jane’s challenge.
CASE 3
Jane fought for the justification of a period of time involving higher deputyship costs for work to be done, over and above routine deputyship general management (to enable the Claimant a period of intense work with the deputy in order to be successfully discharged from the COP down the line, as there was a real prospect of success). Jane won on the point, as lifetime COP costs were thought to be unnecessary due to an evolving capacity position.
