Case Updates

After summarising the case law, the court in this case stated that there is a high threshold to be reached in order for ill health or physical disability to impinge upon the court's approach to assessing the appropriate method of sentencing an offender. This is not to say that ill health or disability will never be taken into consideration as is indicated by these terms: ‘not generally’, ‘not automatically’, ‘can take account’, ‘may enable’, ‘not in itself’, ‘it may be permissible’, ‘in appropriate cases’, ‘permissible to have regard’ and ‘purely on the basis’.

Lavery, R v (Sentencing Remarks) [2026] NICC 5

The parties disagreed on the extent of the repairs required to the joists, and the manner in which the repairs should be effected, following the collapse of part of the ceiling in a building owned by the Claimant and partly leased by the Defendant. The Judge found that the Defendant’s expert’s failure to engage with all the available evidence and to seek to undertake a fuller examination of the joists meant that his evidence did not fully address the issues before the court.

We have previously considered the problem for experts of redacted medical records. This, and the actual disclosure of medical, and also safeguarding, records is an issue in this ongoing personal injury case.

Although it illustrates the tests that the court will apply in deciding on disclosure of records, it also seems to illustrate the oft made point that a case turns on its own facts. In this case disclosure of records relating to a particular letter became unnecessary when it was established that the letter did not relate to the claimant. The relevance of the claimant’s mother’s immigration records arose out of the coincidence in time of a stage in her appeal process and a deterioration in the claimant’s condition.

RFV v Middleham [2026] EWHC 916 (KB) 

The case of Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (T/A Hastings Insurance) [2026] EWHC 784 (KB) provides a good reminder that previous criticism can be brought up to discredit your expert evidence.

This case illustrates a number of difficulties for the adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. Diagnoses of psychiatric disorder in childhood have to be made retrospectively. Contemporaneous records may be missing, incomplete or insufficiently detailed. Even where the only adverse childhood experience is the sexual abuse, it is difficult to prove that the victim’s subsequent trajectory in life has been any different to what it would have been but for the sexual abuse.

DBAK v The Governors of the Fettes Trust [2026] CSOH 5

The claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident while she was the passenger in a car driven by her partner, who was the defendant’s insured. She claimed compensation for whiplash and psychological symptoms. The judge described the report of the physiotherapist expert witness who acted for the claimant as almost worse than useless and aspects of her evidence as literally unbelievable

Clark v Skyfire Insurance Company Limited, Canterbury County Court, 12th November 2025 

The expert acting for the appellant had appeared before the Valuation Tribunal for England as advocate and expert for the appellant, and he continued to represent the appellant in its appeal before the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) until counsel was instructed close to the date of the hearing. The Tribunal noted that experts in these circumstances must take particular care to acknowledge their position and explain how compliance with the duties of an expert has been achieved.

Espresso Rooms UK Limited v Nicola Johnson [2026] UKUT 70 (LC)

The two handwriting experts in this case were given completely different samples of comparator signatures and did not undertake the same task. The judge noted that it was extraordinary and unsatisfactory that the defendants’ expert was provided with comparator signatures which were not the person’s normal signature and was then instructed to assume they were authentic.

The details of this case are for gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. The learning points are of general application and although made by an expert in their first case, they reflect mistakes made by some more experienced experts who should know better.

Patricia's Father v Patricia (Rev1) [2025] EWCOP 30 (T3)

The Claimant, on her solicitor’s advice, covertly recorded her testing by the Defendant’s neuropsychological expert. Weighing up the factors in favour of admitting the evidence and against admitting it, the judge considered that they were very finely balanced and quite difficult and that he may well have ruled that the evidence could not be relied on, if the Defendant’s expert had not himself inadvertently recorded the testing.