Case Updates

The Appellant, a citizen of Tajikistan, was appealing the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection claim. The Judge gained the distinct impression that the Appellant’s expert witness was simply advocating on behalf of the Appellant, rather than assisting the Tribunal by providing a critical, objective expert opinion on the context. In doing so, he trespassed into the role reserved for the Tribunal.

The applicant, who required leases over mineral rights, could not agree with the owners of those rights on compensation and valuation issues. The expert witnesses for both parties had previously acted as expert advisors to their clients. However, while one expert witness understood that their role was not to advocate for a particular party or outcome but to assist the court, the other expert was unable to disassociate their longstanding role as an expert advisor from their duties to the court.

The judgment dealt with the defendant's application for reverse summary judgment or to strike out the claimant's claim and the claimant's application to strike out the defendant's application and for a stay of related proceedings. The claimant attempted to submit a non-compliant report as 'independent expert evidence' to support his application without obtaining permission to do so.

Cam Askan v HM Land Registry [2026] EWHC 1352 (Ch)

The claimant asserted misrepresentation and breach of a collateral contract by the defendant in respect of the supply of a vertical diamond cutting lathe for the claimant’s car wheel repair business. The judge found that the accountancy reports were not expert evidence but simply aids to understanding the details in a complex case.

In straying from their original instructions, the expert developed an opinion without all the facts of the case and the second claimant was being coached through his cross-examination using smart glasses.

UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Limited & Ors Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)

The claimant was suing for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of assets used in its high-pressure aluminium diecasting business. The defendants’ expert received instructions that limited the scope of his investigation and analysis. While the judge accorded less weight to his evidence, he did not accept the claimant’s suggestion that the defendants’ expert ought to have either declined the instructions or proffered his opinion on wider valuation issues even in relation to issues outside of his instructions.

The judge found that the report by the claimants’ forensic accounting expert was not expert evidence because it simply reported what the underlying documents said in a more digestible way, without adding any expert opinion. On the one or two occasions where the expert did offer an opinion, they were not opinions on any accountancy matter.

The task for the expert in this case was enormous. Capacity is issue specific. This means that if the issue is someone’s capacity to conduct legal proceedings, in this case sixteen sets of proceedings, the expert has to consider each set of proceedings. The person may have the capacity to conduct some and not others.

Johnston v Financial Ombudsman Service [2025] EWCA Civ 551

It is not easy to appreciate the significance of this judgment for experts in general without reading the summary so the ‘Commentary’ is at the end. The neuropsychological test results are perhaps not of particular interest to psychologists and psychiatrists at this stage in the proceedings but may become so if the case does not settle and it goes to trial. 

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

Few reported cases assist as to expert evidence in cases of harassment and on the issue of injury to feelings as distinct from psychiatric injury. This summary should be read for this reason. It illustrates how the expert should respond to less than neutral instructions. It illustrates how cardiological evidence was analysed in order for the court to conclude that the defendant’s course of conduct had caused a myocardial infarction. It also reveals the charitable aspect of pro bono legal practice.   

Wei v Long [2025] EWHC 912 (KB)