Case Updates

The Claimant asserted that the Defendant had infringed their patent for an electric shower-waster pump and control unit. The trial related to liability only. Both sides criticised the other’s expert. The Judge rejected these criticisms noting that, while he reached conclusions that differed from the experts in various places, he did not consider either expert to be unreliable or that their evidence generally should be discounted.

The case concerned the non-payment by a tenant of a commercial service charge. In considering the tenant’s permitted contractual defences of “manifest or mathematical error or fraud”, the Supreme Court construed the meaning of “manifest error” narrowly.

The Claimant was suing in relation to profound disabilities he suffered due to the Defendant’s admitted clinical negligence. While some of the experts were praised, some were severally criticised by the judge, particularly for failing to consider the range of opinion. Two of the experts were also significantly hampered by their nervousness in cross-examination. 

JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 2294 (KB)

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 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.