The claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident while she was the passenger in a car driven by her partner, who was the defendant’s insured. She claimed compensation for whiplash and psychological symptoms. The judge described the report of the physiotherapist expert witness who acted for the claimant as almost worse than useless and aspects of her evidence as literally unbelievable

Clark v Skyfire Insurance Company Limited, Canterbury County Court, 12th November 2025 

Working with expert witnesses... is a new monthly article series. The series takes a look at the role of expert witnesses in a range of sectors from the perspective of the legal and other professionals who work with them. If you are interested in being featured in the series, you can contact us at policy@ewi.org.uk. 

The first article in the series is by Richard Black and Jennifer Fitzmaurice from Eversheds Sutherland on their experience of working with expert witnesses in the construction industry. 

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.

Dr Jane Duff is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Head of the National Spinal Injuries Centre Psychology Service, and an Expert Witness. Here, she tells us what she loves about her work and how her clinical and medicolegal roles come together to complement one another.

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 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.

This case concerns the treatment of an ankle injury. Although the orthopaedic experts expressed fundamentally opposing views concerning the appropriate management of the injury and the court did have to resolve some issues by deciding whose evidence to accept, an unusual feature of this case was the significance of the fact that the evidence of the defendant orthopaedic surgeon evolved and developed during the course of the forensic process leading the court to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant's witness statement and his account at trial were almost certainly an amalgam of what the defendant thought and his expert’s opinion of which parts were found to have been copied and pasted into his witness statement. So, the court found that the defendant's account of his reasoning and recollection had been, no doubt unwittingly, influenced by expert opinion.

Ebanks-Blake v Calder [2025] EWHC 3327 (KB) 

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.