Tasib, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 139 (Admin) makes for interesting reading because it illustrates what information lawyers and courts need when deciding which expert to instruct and how they look at experts’ fees and expenses. The cheapest report will not be provided by the expert with the lowest hourly rate if they spend much longer on the case than more expensive experts. It makes a difference whether there is a charge for travelling expenses.

This case illustrates a number of difficulties for the adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. Diagnoses of psychiatric disorder in childhood have to be made retrospectively. Contemporaneous records may be missing, incomplete or insufficiently detailed. Even where the only adverse childhood experience is the sexual abuse, it is difficult to prove that the victim’s subsequent trajectory in life has been any different to what it would have been but for the sexual abuse.

DBAK v The Governors of the Fettes Trust [2026] CSOH 5

In this case, the Family Court makes clear the position with regard to people who describe themselves as psychologists but are not (a) regulated by a UK statutory body; or (b) on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care; or (c) regulated by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007.     

Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach), Re [2026] EWFC 38

This case illustrates the factors taken into account in Scotland in deciding whether to grant an application for certification of an expert which is necessary if the charges of a skilled person are to be recovered from other parties by way of judicial expenses.

Grant v Lothian Buses LTD [2025] CSOH 98

It appears that in this case an expert recommended the appointment of an intermediary without understanding the role of an intermediary. The court did accommodate proper breaks and ensured clear explanations as to the charges faced.

R v Sartip-Zadeh [2025] EWCA Crim 1250

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 details of this case are for gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. The learning points are of general application and although made by an expert in their first case, they reflect mistakes made by some more experienced experts who should know better.

Patricia's Father v Patricia (Rev1) [2025] EWCOP 30 (T3)

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

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

This judgment appears to provide some clarity on an issue about which seemingly conflicting advice is given to experts. It concerns the listing of documents and materials. 

Brown v Sterne [2025] NIMaster 15