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 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 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 

The judge in this claim for professional negligence struck out a witness statement which contained paragraphs which were pure opinion, made by the witness as a self-proclaimed expert, noting that it was expert evidence by the back door, in contravention of CPR Part 35 and plainly abusive. 

Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB)

This is a case in which the tribunal was critical of an expert witness. One criticism was that he did not expressly acknowledge the guidance provided in the Ikarian Reefer in his declaration – “a step taken by many experts who prepare reports for this Chamber”.

UI2023005210 [2024] UKAITUR UI2023005210

While the Judge in this extradition appeal ultimately reached the same conclusion as the District Court Judge, and dismissed the appeal, he pointed out significant deficiencies in how the District Court Judge had treated the expert psychological evidence.

This case illustrates how the Family Court depends on expert paediatric and radiological evidence to decide when and how a child’s fracture was sustained. This summary does not include how the court used the evidence. Suffice it to say that the expert evidence was only a part of the evidence before the court.  

C1 and C2 (Children: Fact Finding), Re [2024] EWFC 247 (B)