In these professional disciplinary proceedings it was considered highly unusual for an expert to act on behalf of a Registrant having also provided a character reference in support of the same Registrant.

Mew v General Dental Council [2026] EWHC 1116 (Admin) 

The case concerned around 40 studio recordings of performances which were given by the members of the Jimi Hendrix Experience. The expert witnesses in New York law were commended by the judge on their written and oral evidence. The judge was not persuaded by any of the criticisms of the claimants' expert made by the defendant.  

Noel Redding Estate Ltd & Anor v Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited [2026] EWHC 983 (Ch)

Despite attacks on the expert’s credibility, the judge provided praise for all three experts in the case of Gillian Dakin v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The claimant asserted misrepresentation and breach of a collateral contract by the defendant in respect of the supply of a vertical diamond cutting lathe for the claimant’s car wheel repair business. The judge found that the accountancy reports were not expert evidence but simply aids to understanding the details in a complex case.

From March to June 2025, the Family Procedure Rule Committee held a consultation on new Family Procedure Rule 25.5A concerning the instruction of unregulated experts. The Committee has now indicated that changes to the FPR on unregulated experts in children proceedings will be included in the next statutory instrument, expected in July, alongside the corresponding practice direction changes.

In the fourth article in the Working with expert witnesses series, Michael Kingman from Setfords Solicitors, discusses his experience of working with expert witnesses in clinical negligence. 

In his March 2026 article, Thomas Hamilton provides a clear exposition of the expert's role and best practice in serious injury litigation when acting for claimants. In clinical negligence claims, the role of the medical expert is even more critical, as expert evidence is required on breach of duty, causation, and condition/prognosis. This article offers selective comments on the practice and procedure relating to medical evidence, based on the author's experience, with the aim of providing practical guidance and, where appropriate, prompting reflection.

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we preview the EWI  Annual Conference which will be held virtually on 19 June 2026. We look at some of the themes from expert witness conferences in 2025, including talking to Holly King about 'How to reduce the re-traumatisation of claimants in medico-legal litigation claims', consider the programme for our 2026 conference, and introduce a new segment on the podcast called 'A case that changed me'. 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.

The judgment dealt with two test cases and a number of generic issues arising from a series of claims brought by former members of the military for damages for noise induced hearing loss (‘NIHL’). The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s employment expert who had more relevant experience and knowledge and engaged more critically with the evidence.  

We speak to David Deacon, a chartered surveyor who has spent his career in residential property. He founded Housing Disrepair Surveys, leading a team of Expert Witnesses operating nationwide in housing disrepair claims. Here, he tells us how the business came about, why impartiality is everything, and what advice he would give to any surveyor considering Expert Witness work.

The importance of this case is that it confirms that medical practitioners providing evidence as to a patient’s fitness to participate in legal proceedings are providing expert evidence. It may be termed ‘professional’ evidence but it is expert evidence. It is expert evidence because the medical practitioner is assisting the court as to matters outside the knowledge and experience of the court. In this case the court depended on the applicant’s general practitioner to understand complex PTSD, spiking of blood pressure to dangerous levels and dysphonia and how they made the applicant unfit to participate in her appeal against the order made by the court as to the disposal of her son’s ashes.

Julie Karen Hoarean v Paul Anthony Read [2026] EWHC 763 (Ch)