The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the snowmobile guides’ evidence, but positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour.

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist would need to be instructed after the expert directly challenged the findings of the Court and the soundness of the evidence on which those findings were based. The Court denied the expert’s subsequent request for anonymity.

Liverpool City Council v A & Ors [2025] EWHC 1474 (Fam)

For paediatricians this is an example of how not to conduct an expert paediatric assessment and present the results to the court. It also illustrates some basic points applicable to all experts.

M v F [2025] EWFC 150 (B)

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 court noted that the jointly instructed expert demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both CPR 35 and the duties owed to the court by an expert in allowing someone else in this firm to answer CPR 35 questions on his behalf. His report was also entirely equivocal on the key issues and therefore offered little or no assistance to the court.

Kate Rodgers v Laural Brookes [2025] EWCC 31

Within this update we feature the well-publicised case of WH Holding Limited and E20 Stadium LLP [2025] EWHC 140 (Comm).  The case concerns a successful challenge of an expert’s decision in the context of a concession agreement for sporting events. 

The claim was initiated as a High Court claim for declaratory relief under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  The judgment was released in January of this year having been heard by Paul Mitchell KC last December. 

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.

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.

This was a significant and well reported patent case which was determined in the Intellectual Property List within the High Court last autumn.   

The technical aspects of the case required significant expert input from the panel involved.  The cross-examinations performed by leading Counsel for the parties were lengthy and complicated.  This led to confusion over what evidence was given when the transcripts were re-visited on subsequent trial days. The case shows how consideration should be given to experts who are being cross-examined so not to overload them with questions and information on the stand.