The claimant asserted misrepresentation and breach of a collateral contract by the defendant in respect of the supply of a vertical diamond cutting lathe for the claimant’s car wheel repair business. The judge found that the accountancy reports were not expert evidence but simply aids to understanding the details in a complex case.

The judgment dealt with two test cases and a number of generic issues arising from a series of claims brought by former members of the military for damages for noise induced hearing loss (‘NIHL’). The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s employment expert who had more relevant experience and knowledge and engaged more critically with the evidence.  

The importance of this case is that it confirms that medical practitioners providing evidence as to a patient’s fitness to participate in legal proceedings are providing expert evidence. It may be termed ‘professional’ evidence but it is expert evidence. It is expert evidence because the medical practitioner is assisting the court as to matters outside the knowledge and experience of the court. In this case the court depended on the applicant’s general practitioner to understand complex PTSD, spiking of blood pressure to dangerous levels and dysphonia and how they made the applicant unfit to participate in her appeal against the order made by the court as to the disposal of her son’s ashes.

Julie Karen Hoarean v Paul Anthony Read [2026] EWHC 763 (Ch)

The claimant was diagnosed in 2023 with mesothelioma, after attending his general practitioner complaining of shortness of breath. Initially, the treating hospital considered he was suffering from lung cancer but later, after further consideration, they revised their diagnosis to mesothelioma. The court found that when the expert for the claimant suggested molecular testing, he was seeking to explore the possibilities of resolving the diagnosis, while the court was troubled by the defedant's expert's view that it was not necessary to go on to consider molecular testing when the results of the immunohistology were available. 

David McNally v Gentoo Group Limited Neutral Citation Number [2026] EWHC 750 (KB)

The case of Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (T/A Hastings Insurance) [2026] EWHC 784 (KB) provides a good reminder that previous criticism can be brought up to discredit your expert evidence.

The outcome of an Expert Determination is final and binding. However, there are circumstances in which the outcome can be appealed. The case of GSY Hospitality Limited v Gladstone Court Developments Limited Neutral Citation Number[2025] EWHC 3231 (TCC) sets out these circumstances.

Although the detail of McIntyre, R v [2026] NICC 2 will probably be of importance only for forensic science imagery analysts, it is important for experts in criminal cases in Northern Ireland, for forensic clinicians insofar as their activities fall within the remit of the Forensic Science Regulator, and it is of general interest as it illustrates the risks for experts instructed by the prosecution of not ensuring an appropriate distance from the investigating police officers.

This case, in the Court of Protection, concerned whether a wealthy, elderly man lacked capacity. The judgment dealt primarily with an application by respondents 2-7 to replace the jointly instructed expert with a new expert or, at the very least, permission for them to instruct their own expert.   

The judge did not find grounds to end the Single Joint Expert’s instruction but was satisfied that permitting respondents 2-7 to obtain a further report was appropriate in this particular case.

In straying from their original instructions, the expert developed an opinion without all the facts of the case and the second claimant was being coached through his cross-examination using smart glasses.

UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Limited & Ors Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)

The Secretary of State for the Home Office was appealing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) to allow the Respondent’s appeal on Article 2 and 3 ECHR grounds against his deportation to Afghanistan. The Home Office did not seek to challenge the Respondent’s experts by requiring either of the experts to attend for cross-examination.