“I found Mr Luck a most impressive, and quietly authoritative, witness.  His attention to detail in his reports and in his oral evidence was complete.  He readily made concessions when, having considered a proposition put to him in cross-examination, he could see merit in it.  His approach was careful, scientific, and entirely detached”.

“I must say, with all respect, that in general I preferred the evidence of Mr Luck to that of Mr (Redacted).  Quite apart from the impressive and scholarly quality of Mr Luck’s report and citations from authority, he gave me the impression that he considered the questions thoughtfully and thoroughly.  Having done so, he was ready to modify a view if he thought a good point had been made in cross-examination: and this, I hope, is evident from some of the extracts from my notes of the evidence set out above. I cannot say that Mr (Redacted) impressed me with the same open-mindedness. Moreover, some of his answers lacked conviction, as in the example of his dismissal of jaw symptoms as irrelevant for one purpose, but as relevant for another”.