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.

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 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

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 appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He appealed against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge who dismissed his appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse his protection claim. The appellant raised three grounds of appeal including that the Judge failed to properly take into account the medical evidence.The Upper Tribunal found that it was clear from the Tribunal Judge's decision that he rejected the medical evidence in a comprehensive and detailed way. This was not, contrary to the grounds of appeal, the Judge ignoring the medical evidence when he was making his credibility findings. As such the Tribunal found that the Judge did not materially err as advanced, and his decision stands.

JK v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2024003446

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.