Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.

The proceedings related to a petition asserting unfair prejudicial conduct of the affairs of a company. The expert witness who provided valuation evidence, wrote to the court three months after the trial expressing concerns about his own valuation report.

The trial dealt with liability issues relating to the alleged use of prohibited defeat devices. That is, devices which reduce the effectiveness of a vehicle’s emission control system for which there is no excuse or applicable exception. The judge criticised three of the expert witnesses for not complying with their duties under Part 35, and praised others.

The Claimant brought a claim in negligence against the Defendant, a dental practitioner, about the Defendant’s alleged failure to provide her with adequate advice about the risks and benefits of the treatment options available to her. The Claimant’s expert lacked understanding of the Bolam test, had not considered the dental notes, and was forced to make significant concessions in the joint report.

This year’s Annual Conference discussed AI, independence, credibility, transparency and the changing expectations on expert witnesses.

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at the EWI Annual Conference which was held on 19 June. The Conference got off to a great start with a keynote speech on AI & the Expert Witness by Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, and carried on with great speakers and panels. Join us on a trip down memory lane as we relive our key highlights from the event. 

This was a fact finding hearing into the death of a young child. The Judge found that the neurologist expert witness failed to discharge his duties as an expert witness to the family court.

The Claimant suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident after the Defendant, who was driving out of a side road, collided with the Claimant’s motorbike. Despite being aware of surveillance evidence before preparing his last report, the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert did not reveal his true opinions on the Claimant’s malingering until cross-examination.

Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)

Shortly after the close of the trial, the Claimants sought permission to rely on a short further addendum report from their expert in PRC law, Mr X. The Judge refused the application on the grounds that it would not be fair or proportionate to admit further expert evidence from Mr X.

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.