OUR SERVICES

 At the pre-litigation or pre-instruction stage, we conduct targeted scientific literature reviews to assess whether the published evidence can plausibly support the causal assumptions a proposed case depends on. This involves examining disease mechanisms, progression pathways, and claimed links between delay, exposure, or intervention and outcome, as well as the strength, limits, and uncertainty of the available evidence. The aim is to inform early case assessment and proportionate litigation strategy before expert instruction and significant cost are incurred. 

 Once proceedings are underway and expert witnesses have been instructed, we work alongside medico-legal teams to review how scientific evidence is being cited, interpreted, and relied upon within reports, pleadings, and arguments. Our focus is on whether the research evidence supports the causation conclusions being advanced, where assumptions extend beyond the literature, and how uncertainty is handled in a manner likely to withstand scrutiny and cross-examination. This work complements expert clinical opinion without duplicating it. 

 Following adverse determinations, judgments, or regulatory decisions, we provide retrospective scientific evidence review where required. This includes examining how scientific evidence was interpreted or relied upon in reaching a decision, identifying evidential assumptions or limitations relevant to appeals, complaints, or further challenge, and supporting defensible next steps in future litigation, regulatory engagement, or risk management. 

 We provide independent scientific support to expert witnesses in relation to the research evidence underpinning their causation opinions. This includes clarifying the strength and limits of the literature relied upon, distinguishing established evidence from inference, and supporting transparent articulation of uncertainty. Our role is to strengthen the scientific foundations of expert evidence and enhance credibility under judicial scrutiny and cross-examination, without advocacy. 

 In insurance disputes, we analyse whether the causal pathways asserted in a claim are scientifically defensible in light of the published evidence. This work supports liability and coverage assessments, disputed claims, and settlement or litigation decisions by clarifying whether the science can legitimately support the causation being alleged, independently of policy interpretation or claims handling considerations. 

We provide legal scientific consulting by preparing clear, structured written reports that present complex scientific evidence interpretation in a manner suitable for non-scientific decision-makers. This service is often instructed when multiple sources of medical evidence for legal decisions require synthesis and careful explanation, ensuring effective scientific support for litigation and comprehensive medical legal scientific analysis.