Mrs Justice Joanna Smith provides an incredibly useful judgment following the hearing at the High Court in March of this year. Previous case law and legal tests for gross misconduct were addressed and applied given that such allegations underpinned the case.  The parties adduced expert evidence to establish the value of shares on the assumption that warranties had been breached.This update focuses on both experts’ evidence given that the approaches were significantly different and that one was clearly preferred over the other.      

Inspired Education Online Limited -v- Tom Crombie [2025] EWHC 1236 (Ch). 

The claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution.

MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners alleging that they failed to act on a potential diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease. The judge found that one of the GP experts had trespassed on the judicial function to determine the facts and had sought to advocate on behalf of the second defendant.

In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any proceeding, so join us as we discuss how to do them well and avoid the common pitfalls, look at the EWI's recently refreshed guidance, and hear top tips from Beth Rigby and Jessica Thurston, who present the EWI webinar on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. And as usual, we begin with our segment on 'What's going on at EWI?' and end with 'Newsreel', a quick fire discussion of the key things you need to know this month. 

The claimants, who carried on a business breeding falcons, made allegations of harassment and nuisance against their neighbour, who operated a small farm neighbouring their property. While the judge accepted some of the claimants’ criticisms of one of the defendants’ experts, he also noted that the claimants could not complain about the consequences of their putting in new evidence that was not in accordance with the timetable laid down at the CCMC.

The Claimant claimed he had suffered a substantial loss due to the destruction of two consignments of poppy heads by the Defendants. The parties were given permission to rely on the written evidence of expert accountants. The Claimant made an application to the Court for the accountancy expert witnesses to give oral evidence at the trial and an application to adduce evidence prepared by his son.

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub (https://www.ewi.org.uk/Knowledge-Hub). Prepared with the input of members and the EWI Editorial Committee, the guidance includes lots of invaluable advice for navigating each of the key stages in expert discussions and joint statements, form and content, joint statement templates, and how to avoid the common pitfalls. 

The expert paediatrician in this case misidentified and confused twins when reading the primary medical disclose. This fundamental error was of seminal importance in this case because the twins had very different birth and post-birth experiences, with one being much weaker and more vulnerable than the other.  The judge noted that the cross-examination of the expert was nothing short of a demolition of the expert’s evidence.

LB Croydon v D (critical scrutiny of the paedeatric overview)

Chris Cox is a professional heritage consultant, specialist interpreter of aerial imagery and Lidar data, and an Expert Witness. She is the Director of Air Photo Services Ltd.

In the 8th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss re-evaluating your opinion. We look at possible reasons why you might wish to re-evaluate your opinion and the stages in the proceedings where re-evaluation is most likely to occur, before hearing from three senior judges on how re-evaluating your opinion can sometimes be positive for your expert evidence, but may also be disastrous.