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. 

In February's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at feedback and criticism. We go over the rules, discuss the key recent case of Kolomoisky, and hear the thoughts and advice of the members of the EWI Editorial Committee. As always, you can also listen to our 'What's going on at EWI' and 'Newsreel' segments to keep up-to-date on the latest developments in the world of expert witnesses and expert evidence. 

You can listen to the Expert Matters Podcast on a number of podcast apps, including spotify and apple podcasts. 

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 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

In this article, Dr Kay Linnell OBE talks about the role of the expert witness, and the problems that can be encountered when Instructing Parties go too far to prevent any accusation of bias or undue influence on appointed party’s expert, risking the expert’s ability to fully assist the Tribunal. Dr Linnell's article was originally published in the autumn edition of Expert Matters, EWI's membership magazine.

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.

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)

From 1 January 2026, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee will be piloting access to public domain documents in the Commercial Court and London Circuit Commercial Court of the King’s Bench Division and the Financial List (Commercial Court and Chancery Division).

The judgement from The Honourable Mr Justice Trower asserts that Expert Witnesses have a duty to disclose previous criticisms of their evidence in judgments.