In this article, Dr Kay Linnell OBE talks about the role of the expert witness, and the problems that can be encountered when Instructing Parties go too far to prevent any accusation of bias or undue influence on appointed party’s expert, risking the expert’s ability to fully assist the Tribunal. Dr Linnel's article was originally published in the EWI's Expert Matters Memeber Magazine.      

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has published a Practice Direction on expert evidence. The Practice Direction sets out the principles applicable to expert evidence in the Tribunal, including general principles applicable to the evidence of any expert, as well as certain specific principles applicable to economic evidence. 

The Claimant defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage on a warehouse building. It disagreed with the Receiver's approach to marketing the building and applied unsuccessfully to the Court for an order giving it conduct of the mortgagee sale. It's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal included appealing the Judge’s refusal of expert evidence. The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s decision as it was not clear how the report would provide any real assistance with resolving the question before the Judge of whether the conduct of the sale should be taken away from the Receivers.

Retiring from your role as an expert witness is a significant decision that requires careful consideration and planning. The EWI has published new Guidance setting out the important steps and factors to consider as you prepare for retirement.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee's Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot will run from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2027. You can familiarise yourself with the Pilot by reading our Guidance and watching our Webinar (free to EWI Members, otherwise available on the Webshop).

Join us for the last podcast of 2025! With some festive cheer, we review 2025, with the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over the course of the year. We also check out how our predictions for 2025 turned out, before having another go for 2026 and hearing the 2025 highlights from some of the members of our Editorial Committee. 

The Claimants brought an action against the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Education, for negligence and misfeasance in public office, relating to the actions of the Skills Funding Agency (‘SFA’), for which the Defendant is responsible. The Claimants alleged that the acts of SFA prevented them from selling their business for around £27 million, plus a lost chance of converting around £10 million in rollover loan notes.

The Defendant issued an application to revoke the Claimants’ permission to rely upon their forensic accounting expert evidence, because it had become clear that one of the Claimants, who was a trained accountant, had had significant secret involvement in the preparation of the expert’s report and the Joint Statement.

Mr Niall Craig is a Consultant Orthopaedic Spinal Surgeon and Expert Witness specialising in complex spinal cases. He tells us about his professional journey and shares his advice for being cross examined, writing Reports, and getting referrals.  

A section of this judgment is headed ‘Directions concerning the medical expert’. There was no medical expert in this case. There was a report from a psychotherapist. The psychotherapist in question is not registered with the General Medical Council or the Health and Care Professions Council, and it appears that she is not registered with the UK Council of Psychotherapy or the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. This had been an issue in Dosti v SSHD [2002] UKIAT 04021 at §11 where it is stated that there was some doubt as to whether an accredited psychotherapist was an appropriate person to give an expert report on the psychiatric health of a claimant. In this case the tribunal had no evidence as to any accreditation whatsoever. 

Iqbal v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2023001320

The pursuer’s vehicle was stationary at a red light when the defender’s insured collided with him, causing soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back and shoulder. The court commended the defender's expert for changing his opinion on whether a collison had occured after he was shown additional photographs during his examination-in-chief.