Case Updates

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)

Shortly after the close of the trial, the Claimants sought permission to rely on a short further addendum report from their expert in PRC law, Mr X. The Judge refused the application on the grounds that it would not be fair or proportionate to admit further expert evidence from Mr X.

The claimants, who own a property adjoining with the properties of the defendants, complained that the defendants engaged in various acts of trespass on, and damage to, their property. The claimants’ expert, who replaced a retiring expert, referenced and relied on a key, but erroneous, “fact” in his predecessor’s report without checking it.

The claimant alleged that the second defendant, a Spanish racing driver, had repudiated a binding agreement under which he was contracted to drive for the claimants’ IndyCar team for the 2024, 2025 and 2026 racing seasons. The judge found some of the expert witnesses to be impressive and independent, while the expert evidence of others was unimpressive and disappointing.  

The case was a group litigation concerning extensive oil pollution which affected two regions in the Niger Delta in Nigeria. The judge rejected the strident criticism of the experts who were called to provide evidence on aspects of Nigerian law.

The defendant was contracted, during the Covid lockdowns, to source and supply sterile gowns, which the claimant subsequently asserted were not contractually compliant. Issues for expert evidence included the sterility of the gowns and whether the claimant could have mitigated the loss by resale.

The Court excluded consideration of the expert testimony of an expert on the dangers of AI and misinformation, after he submitted an expert declaration which included fake AI-generated citations to two academic articles.

Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 WL 66514 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025)

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 claimant, who suffered brain damage at birth, relied on a report commenting on the allegation of negligence prepared by Mrs S, a midwife. The judge was concerned about the objectivity of Mrs S’s expert evidence because she was heavily involved in the business of litigation and gave evidence which he considered was uncompromisingly critical of the defendant.

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.