Case Updates

The court noted that the jointly instructed expert demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both CPR 35 and the duties owed to the court by an expert in allowing someone else in this firm to answer CPR 35 questions on his behalf. His report was also entirely equivocal on the key issues and therefore offered little or no assistance to the court.

Kate Rodgers v Laural Brookes [2025] EWCC 31

The claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution.

MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)

The claimants, who carried on a business breeding falcons, made allegations of harassment and nuisance against their neighbour, who operated a small farm neighbouring their property. While the judge accepted some of the claimants’ criticisms of one of the defendants’ experts, he also noted that the claimants could not complain about the consequences of their putting in new evidence that was not in accordance with the timetable laid down at the CCMC.

The Claimant claimed he had suffered a substantial loss due to the destruction of two consignments of poppy heads by the Defendants. The parties were given permission to rely on the written evidence of expert accountants. The Claimant made an application to the Court for the accountancy expert witnesses to give oral evidence at the trial and an application to adduce evidence prepared by his son.

The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if admissible, was neither necessary nor of assistance to the court.

The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors.  Both sides approached their instructions to their expert from different angles which caused difficulties at trial.  This explained why the valuations were worlds apart (or as the judge commented they had a “manifestly excessive difference”) and needed some careful scrutiny and assessment by the judge. Whilst the approach of examining both valuations is very case specific, there are some fundamental tests which can be taken away.  An objective test was used several times as a benchmark looking at the scope of works that a ‘reasonable owner’ or ‘purchaser’ would require.  The key legal issue of “proportionality” was also visited frequently throughout the assessment of valuations. 

Iya Patarkatsishvili & Anor v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)

The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration.  

MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)

The judge in this claim for professional negligence struck out a witness statement which contained paragraphs which were pure opinion, made by the witness as a self-proclaimed expert, noting that it was expert evidence by the back door, in contravention of CPR Part 35 and plainly abusive. 

Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB)

This is a case in which the tribunal was critical of an expert witness. One criticism was that he did not expressly acknowledge the guidance provided in the Ikarian Reefer in his declaration – “a step taken by many experts who prepare reports for this Chamber”.

UI2023005210 [2024] UKAITUR UI2023005210

In considering whether the claimant should be required to provide a breakdown of expert and medical agency fees, the judge decided to offer the claimant the option of either providing the breakdown of expert and medical reporting organisation fees, to enable an assessment of work of both the expert and the MRO, or not providing that information and having the expert fees assessed on the hypothetical basis that there was no medical reporting organisation involved.