Case Updates

The Claimant defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage on a warehouse building. It disagreed with the Receiver's approach to marketing the building and applied unsuccessfully to the Court for an order giving it conduct of the mortgagee sale. It's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal included appealing the Judge’s refusal of expert evidence. The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s decision as it was not clear how the report would provide any real assistance with resolving the question before the Judge of whether the conduct of the sale should be taken away from the Receivers.

The Claimants brought an action against the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Education, for negligence and misfeasance in public office, relating to the actions of the Skills Funding Agency (‘SFA’), for which the Defendant is responsible. The Claimants alleged that the acts of SFA prevented them from selling their business for around £27 million, plus a lost chance of converting around £10 million in rollover loan notes.

The Defendant issued an application to revoke the Claimants’ permission to rely upon their forensic accounting expert evidence, because it had become clear that one of the Claimants, who was a trained accountant, had had significant secret involvement in the preparation of the expert’s report and the Joint Statement.

The pursuer’s vehicle was stationary at a red light when the defender’s insured collided with him, causing soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back and shoulder. The court commended the defender's expert for changing his opinion on whether a collison had occured after he was shown additional photographs during his examination-in-chief.

The Petitioner, who was one of 15 candidates in an English Parliamentary By-Election, alleged that his vote count of 50 was fraudulently pre-determined. The expert statistician for the Petitioner based his opinion solely on the evidence of the Petitioner, which was contested. He was unaware of the contents of the Respondents’ witness statements and had not taken them into account.

The case was a claim in negligence arising out of complications following bariatric surgery. When he was asked during cross-examination to explain the Bolam test, the Claimant’s expert was not able to demonstrate an accurate understanding of, or ability to explain, the test.

The Claimant alleged that an accident five years earlier was the cause of the amputation of his lower leg. The judge criticised the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert, Professor H, for demonstrating at times a rather ‘loose approach’ to his expert evidence and a closed mindedness towards his evidence.

The Claimant’s father and litigation friend alleged that the medical practitioners treating his son were negligent in not promptly carrying out an ultrasound on his head, after he had been admitted to hospital with head injuries. The judge found that the expert for the Claimant was, to an extent, seeking to fight his corner rather than taking a dispassionate approach to the issues raised.

The Claimants alleged that dust, noise and odour emitted by the defendant’s factory over a prolonged period constituted a legal nuisance. The judge was critical of the Claimants’ experts for departing from the initial common approach when the initial results had been adverse to their clients’ case.

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on the steps of the lorry on one foot and leaning on the cab, to allegedly lose his balance and suffer injuries. The defendant led an expert witness, Mr H, who presented himself as a Forensic Engineer, and the pursuer an Orthopaedic expert, Mr S. 

The Sherrif concluded that he could not afford Mr H’s conclusions more than minimal weight because of a failure of methodology. Mr H had also expressed his conclusions in terms that gave the appearance that he was the decision-maker and made concessions during cross-examination. The Sherrif found Mr S to be a credible and reliable witness overall but noted that he was not clear when describing his fee arrangements. 

The claimant brought an action against two of its founding shareholders, and companies owned or controlled by them, seeking compensation for harm caused by their alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme. The forensic accounting expert for the first defendant failed to inform the court, until shortly before he gave evidence, that he had ceased to hold a key professional membership.  

JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch)