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.

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

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.

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.

Mr Niall Craig is a Consultant Orthopaedic Spinal Surgeon and Expert Witness specialising in complex spinal cases. He tells us about his professional journey and shares his advice for being cross examined, writing Reports, and getting referrals.  

The pursuer’s vehicle was stationary at a red light when the defender’s insured collided with him, causing soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back and shoulder. The court commended the defender's expert for changing his opinion on whether a collison had occured after he was shown additional photographs during his examination-in-chief.

This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out following a stroke. The court considered a number of relevant publications.

For experts in psychiatry and psychology, it is important as it illustrates how the court tests evidence in cases involving performance validity testing.

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB) 

The case was a claim in negligence arising out of complications following bariatric surgery. When he was asked during cross-examination to explain the Bolam test, the Claimant’s expert was not able to demonstrate an accurate understanding of, or ability to explain, the test.