One of the key roles of the Expert Witness Institute (‘EWI’) is to ensure that policy, rule and regulatory changes are informed by the experience of our members, and the needs of the expert witness community and the wider justice system. In this update, we discuss key policy developments and our advocacy work over the last couple of months. 

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.

EWI Chief Executive Officer, Simon Berney-Edwards, shares his thoughts on 2025, a year where Expert Witnesses have continued to come under increasing scrutiny.

The task for the expert in this case was enormous. Capacity is issue specific. This means that if the issue is someone’s capacity to conduct legal proceedings, in this case sixteen sets of proceedings, the expert has to consider each set of proceedings. The person may have the capacity to conduct some and not others.

Johnston v Financial Ombudsman Service [2025] EWCA Civ 551

Join us for the last podcast of 2025! With some festive cheer, we review 2025, with the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over the course of the year. We also check out how our predictions for 2025 turned out, before having another go for 2026 and hearing the 2025 highlights from some of the members of our Editorial Committee. 

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.

A section of this judgment is headed ‘Directions concerning the medical expert’. There was no medical expert in this case. There was a report from a psychotherapist. The psychotherapist in question is not registered with the General Medical Council or the Health and Care Professions Council, and it appears that she is not registered with the UK Council of Psychotherapy or the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. This had been an issue in Dosti v SSHD [2002] UKIAT 04021 at §11 where it is stated that there was some doubt as to whether an accredited psychotherapist was an appropriate person to give an expert report on the psychiatric health of a claimant. In this case the tribunal had no evidence as to any accreditation whatsoever. 

Iqbal v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2023001320

A mother applied to set aside what she submitted were findings made five years ago by a district judge concerning the party’s two children in reliance upon a report prepared by Ms G. The court found that there was no doubt at all that the harm that Ms G put forward arose, in her view, from what she regarded as the mother’s behaviour in alienating the children. Ms G had carried out an assessment of the mother which included her own attachment and other behaviours, but that did not form a finding of fact about how the mother actually behaved. Therefore there were no findings with a solid foundation that the mother alienated the children even though the judge expressed it as such, and accordingly no findings to actually set aside.

It is not easy to appreciate the significance of this judgment for experts in general without reading the summary so the ‘Commentary’ is at the end. The neuropsychological test results are perhaps not of particular interest to psychologists and psychiatrists at this stage in the proceedings but may become so if the case does not settle and it goes to trial. 

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)