Case Updates

Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.

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 proceedings related to a petition asserting unfair prejudicial conduct of the affairs of a company. The expert witness who provided valuation evidence, wrote to the court three months after the trial expressing concerns about his own valuation report.

The Claimants, who were trustees of an angling association which has fishing rights on the River Tees, asserted that the Defendant had interfered with their property rights. The Judge was disappointed that the hydrology experts had inspected the river when it was in very different conditions of water flow. The expert hydrology evidence was also limited to water flow, with no expert evidence available to the Judge on the impact on fish or fishing. One of the experts had also failed to comply with CPR Part 35.

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 trial dealt with liability issues relating to the alleged use of prohibited defeat devices. That is, devices which reduce the effectiveness of a vehicle’s emission control system for which there is no excuse or applicable exception. The judge criticised three of the expert witnesses for not complying with their duties under Part 35, and praised others.

The Claimant brought a claim in negligence against the Defendant, a dental practitioner, about the Defendant’s alleged failure to provide her with adequate advice about the risks and benefits of the treatment options available to her. The Claimant’s expert lacked understanding of the Bolam test, had not considered the dental notes, and was forced to make significant concessions in the joint report.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant was in breach of the agreement between the parties for the supply of single alpha chain collagen. The judge was critical of the Claimant’s expert witnesses, in particular noting that he would have had to direct further accounting expert evidence be produced, if the evidence had been required.

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)