Working with Expert Witnesses: Joint Expert Meetings Working with Expert Witnesses: Joint Expert Meetings

Working with Expert Witnesses: Joint Expert Meetings

In the sixth article in the Working with expert witnesses series, Alexandra Winch a Partner at Stewarts, discusses her experience of...
EWI releases workforce mapping research report EWI releases workforce mapping research report

EWI releases workforce mapping research report

This research has provided the first-ever assessment of the size and characteristics of the Expert Witness workforce in the UK.
Podcast Episode 30: Mapping the Expert Witness Workforce Podcast Episode 30: Mapping the Expert Witness Workforce

Podcast Episode 30: Mapping the Expert Witness Workforce

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkiss, discuss the EWI's project to map the Expert Witness...
EWI Guidance on Acting for Litigants in Person EWI Guidance on Acting for Litigants in Person

EWI Guidance on Acting for Litigants in Person

We have revised our recently published Guidance for experts on acting for litigants in person. After engagement with members, we have decided to amend...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Blackpool Borough Council v RR [2026] EWFC 69
Case Updates

Blackpool Borough Council v RR [2026] EWFC 69

Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.