The case of Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (T/A Hastings Insurance) [2026] EWHC 784 (KB) provides a good reminder that previous criticism can be brought up to discredit your expert evidence.

This case, in the Court of Protection, concerned whether a wealthy, elderly man lacked capacity. The judgment dealt primarily with an application by respondents 2-7 to replace the jointly instructed expert with a new expert or, at the very least, permission for them to instruct their own expert.   

The judge did not find grounds to end the Single Joint Expert’s instruction but was satisfied that permitting respondents 2-7 to obtain a further report was appropriate in this particular case.

In straying from their original instructions, the expert developed an opinion without all the facts of the case and the second claimant was being coached through his cross-examination using smart glasses.

UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Limited & Ors Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)

The dispute was between a former husband and wife, who were Russian nationals, about a post-nuptial agreement. The judge found that much of the expert evidence on Russian law was misdirected and misspent, and of limited use. He emphasised that both experts acted at times as surrogate advocates on behalf of their instructing parties.

In March's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss some recent examples of experts in the courts, drawing out the key learning points for expert witnesses. 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 claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident while she was the passenger in a car driven by her partner, who was the defendant’s insured. She claimed compensation for whiplash and psychological symptoms. The judge described the report of the physiotherapist expert witness who acted for the claimant as almost worse than useless and aspects of her evidence as literally unbelievable

Clark v Skyfire Insurance Company Limited, Canterbury County Court, 12th November 2025 

Most professionals who act as expert witnesses are potentially subject to fitness to practice or other types of regulatory or professional body investigations. This can be extremely stressful and challenging even when the complaint appears to be vexatious or lacking in substance. So, we thought it would be helpful to offer a brief reminder of what you should do in such circumstances to ensure you meet your duties as an expert witness.

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.

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.