The Claimant brought a claim for compensation in the UK after he was hit by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Mallorca and suffered major injuries, including severe brain injuries. The court found the evidence of several of the experts to be unsatisfactory leading the judge to preface his assessment of the expert witnesses with the observation that “[t]he court is not bound by the conclusions of any expert if it offends logic and common sense. We do not have trial by experts.”

The Claimant brought a claim of clinical negligence after suffering a rare but serious complication (anal stenosis) of an operation performed by the Defendant to surgically remove her haemorrhoids. The judge found that the evidence of the Claimant’s expert was based on limited experience or expertise. There were also several instances where he had not acted in accordance with his duties as an expert.

The Claimant sought damages for clinical negligence from the Defendant who, she asserted, failed to diagnose red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome at a face to face consultation. The Claimant’s neurorehabilitation expert prepared his reports, engaged in an expert discussion, and signed the Joint Statement, without having seen the Claimant’s witness statement or the reports of other relevant experts.

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from EWI's 2025 Annual Conference which was held on 20 June. The Conference featured a great line-up of panels and speakers, with keynote speeches from Lady Rose, Justice of the Supreme Court, and Lord Justice Birrs, the Deputy Head of Civil Justice. A wide range of lawyers, judges and expert witnesses joined the panel sessions, and EWI member Dr Richard Marshall provided an insightful session on AI and the Expert Witness. You can also check out 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. 

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.