Case Updates

There are some general learning points for all experts but otherwise this is for neurosurgeons. It is another road traffic accident personal injury case in which the court needed the assistance of neurosurgeons, or at least it would have done but for the fact that it made a finding which made it unnecessary to consider the neurosurgical evidence before reaching a judgment. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant were not in dispute. What was in dispute, but ultimately irrelevant, was what the child’s injuries would have been if the driver of the vehicle had been driving (non-negligently) at a lower speed than he was. It was on this point that the neurosurgical experts disagreed.

MW v Wilkinson [2025] EWHC 2300 (KB) 

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)

In this appeal of an asylum decision, the court was unable to discern sustainable and tolerably clear reasons as to why the judge rejected the expertise of the expert witness and his expert opinion provided in his report.

A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest.

Relevance:     General

Topics:           Professional address              

                        Experience

                        Appointments

Topics:            Duty of expert

                        Range of reasonable opinion

                        Relevant expertise

                        Bias