The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if admissible, was neither necessary nor of assistance to the court.

The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors.  Both sides approached their instructions to their expert from different angles which caused difficulties at trial.  This explained why the valuations were worlds apart (or as the judge commented they had a “manifestly excessive difference”) and needed some careful scrutiny and assessment by the judge. Whilst the approach of examining both valuations is very case specific, there are some fundamental tests which can be taken away.  An objective test was used several times as a benchmark looking at the scope of works that a ‘reasonable owner’ or ‘purchaser’ would require.  The key legal issue of “proportionality” was also visited frequently throughout the assessment of valuations. 

Iya Patarkatsishvili & Anor v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)

The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration.  

MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘Committee) decided, provisionally, to postpone the extended Fixed Recoverable Cost (‘FRC’) stocktake, which was initially planned for February 2025, until October 2025, while the the cost which may be recovered to obtain medical reports in low value road traffic accident related soft tissue and whiplash injury claims is being uprated by 25.4%.

The judge determined that the evidence of the defendant’s expert on the mental health of a man detained by the police was to be preferred in every respect over the claimant’s expert because he had relevant experience of the matters in respect of which he was giving evidence and adopted the right approach.

In recent years a range of stakeholders have raised concerns regarding unregulated experts providing evidence in family law court cases and the standard of the evidence they provide. The Family Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on new FPR 25.5A with the aim of requiring any expert instructed in family law children proceedings to be regulated. A key purpose of the changes is to ensure that any expert instructed in family law children proceedings has the appropriate skills and qualifications on which to base their expert evidence. 

While there are many respectable and legitimate expert witness agencies who provide brilliant support to the expert witnesses who work with them, the EWI has had continuing reports of the activities of some unethical agencies who prey upon experts who do not have a good understanding of expert witness work or who may be vulnerable to such approaches for other reasons. We do not want any expert to fall victim to an unscrupulous agency, so we have prepared a short guide setting out the red flags to watch out for in the approach of an unethical agency and, conversely, the sorts of positive signs to expect from a respectable and legitimate agency, including a quick checklist to complete. 

In this patent case, the judge noted that neither expert was a native English speaker and both had difficulties with questions put to them during cross-examination. The misstep of one expert over the word “buckling”, which he had used in his report, and his use of a translator during cross-examination for reference, led the judge to approach his written evidence with a degree of caution.

Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited [2025] EWHC 497 (Pat)

A common issue in personal injury orthopaedic cases is whether the damage of which the claimant complains is degenerative or traumatic in origin or a combination. This case illustrates for specialists in neurosurgery, orthopaedics, pain medicine and radiology how the court resolved conflicting expert evidence. It also illustrates the risks of reliance on the claimant’s self-reported history, especially if they have taken it upon themselves to research into areas of medical and legal expertise.

Rezmuves v Birney [2024] IEHC 592 

In Episode 10 of the Expert Matters Podcast we celebrate International Women's Day. Women are appointed or testify in only 9% of disputes worldwide and in many fields there are many fewer female expert witnesses than female practitioners overall. We hear from a guest panel of Kathryn Britten, Dr Frances Cranfield and Dr Kathryn Newns on the barriers and challenges women face and some potential solutions, before EWI's Membership Manager, Wiebke Morgen, tells us about EWI's involvement in the Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses (ERE) Pledge.