Day in the life of an Expert Witness

The operator of the Nord Stream pipeline was suing insurance companies for damages caused to the pipelines by explosions which rendered them inoperable. The Defendant insurance companies asserted that the claim for damage was excluded under the policies. Judge found the evidence of one of the geopolitical experts unsatisfactory because he appeared at times to be seeking to support the Claimant’s case by advancing arguments that flew in the face of common sense and the inferences to be drawn from the known facts.

In her judgment on X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child), the Judge was highly critical of the evidence and conduct during proceedings of one of the expert witnesses, a consultant neurosurgeon, Mr M. This judgment, which should be read alongside the earlier judgment, dealt with whether Mr M should be named within that published judgment.

The decision in Evie Toombes v Dr Mitchell [2021] EWHC 3234 (QB) offers important lessons for expert witnesses across all disciplines. Although the case arose from a routine primary care consultation on pre-conception folic acid advice, the legal principles extend well beyond general practice. The case centred on an apparently straightforward clinical encounter that raised significant issues of duty of care, foreseeability, causation, and the standard of care. 

For expert witnesses, the judgment reinforced the importance of objective, evidence based opinions, careful analysis of contemporaneous records, and clear reasoning. 

This was a fact finding hearing into the death of a young child. The Judge found that the neurologist expert witness failed to discharge his duties as an expert witness to the family court.

Although the detail of this judgment is for diabetologists and gastroenterologists it is of general interest with regard to its treatment of statistical evidence, reliance on odds ratios and relative risk ratios and the position taken by the court on the relationship between the civil standard of proof and confidence intervals.

Alexander v HCA International Ltd [2026] EWHC 1284 (KB) 

The claimant sought damages amounting to the difference between the £16.9 million contract sale price from a failed house sale and the sum ultimately obtained for the property of £10.1 million, less that £2.5 million forfeited deposit. After finding the expert evidence compromised by the information provided to the experts, the judge set out a better approach to expert evidence in property valuation.

The decision in O'Neill v Scottish Ambulance Service Board [2025] CSOH 17 provides important guidance on the legal and professional standards applicable to remote clinical triage. The court reaffirmed that clinicians conducting telephone assessments are held to the same professional standards as those undertaking face-to-face consultations.

The Claimant suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident after the Defendant, who was driving out of a side road, collided with the Claimant’s motorbike. Despite being aware of surveillance evidence before preparing his last report, the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert did not reveal his true opinions on the Claimant’s malingering until cross-examination.

Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)