The Annual Sir Michael Davies Lecture for 2025 was held on 15 October at the RAF Club in London. The Right Honourable Lady Simler, Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered an insightful lecture on Enhancing Expert Evidence: Reports, Opinions, and Judicial Perspectives, which was summed up perfectly by EWI Chair Sir Martin Spencer as the blueprint for providing the best written and oral expert evidence.

The Claimants alleged that dust, noise and odour emitted by the defendant’s factory over a prolonged period constituted a legal nuisance. The judge was critical of the Claimants’ experts for departing from the initial common approach when the initial results had been adverse to their clients’ case.

Her appointment was announced at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture on Wednesday 15th October.. 

The award was made at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture on the 15th of October.

There are some general learning points for all experts but otherwise this is for neurosurgeons. It is another road traffic accident personal injury case in which the court needed the assistance of neurosurgeons, or at least it would have done but for the fact that it made a finding which made it unnecessary to consider the neurosurgical evidence before reaching a judgment. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant were not in dispute. What was in dispute, but ultimately irrelevant, was what the child’s injuries would have been if the driver of the vehicle had been driving (non-negligently) at a lower speed than he was. It was on this point that the neurosurgical experts disagreed.

MW v Wilkinson [2025] EWHC 2300 (KB) 

We speak to a consultant Speech and Language Therapist providing assessments for Special Educational Need (SEND) tribunals and writing medicolegal reports for educational negligence and personal injury cases. Here, they tell us more about their Expert Witness work, explains why they find it so meaningful, and how they balance it with their clinical and voluntary commitments.

October 10th is World Mental Health Day and in this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at the issue of wellbeing and resilience as an expert witness. We discuss some learnings from recent judgments, have a really insightful talk with EWI member and Clinical Psychologist Dr Claire Wilson, before hearing advice from the members of EWI's Editorial Committee. You can also catch 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 Episode 17 of the Expert Matters Podcast on a number of podcast apps, including spotify and apple podcasts. If you can't find the podcast on your favourite app, let us know at expertmatters@ewi.org.uk.

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use of validity testing in medico-legal assessment. Commentaries from Professor Michael Kopelman (neuropsychiatry), Dr Karen Addy (neuropsychology), Mr Daniel Friedland (neuropsychology) and Dr Kathryn Newns (clinical psychology) were published in the MAEP Expert Witness Healthcare Matters newsletter, coordinated by Professor Rix.

This follow-up brings together the key points emerging across disciplines. It also clarifies several areas regarding the early learning points given in the September case update. The discussion in this article refines those conclusions and reflects current multidisciplinary consensus. 

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on the steps of the lorry on one foot and leaning on the cab, to allegedly lose his balance and suffer injuries. The defendant led an expert witness, Mr H, who presented himself as a Forensic Engineer, and the pursuer an Orthopaedic expert, Mr S. 

The Sherrif concluded that he could not afford Mr H’s conclusions more than minimal weight because of a failure of methodology. Mr H had also expressed his conclusions in terms that gave the appearance that he was the decision-maker and made concessions during cross-examination. The Sherrif found Mr S to be a credible and reliable witness overall but noted that he was not clear when describing his fee arrangements.