Expert Matters - The Podcast

This month, on the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at the issues and challenges of being an expert advisor versus an expert witness, and especially transitioning from one to the other, with three guests who share their experiences and extremely helpful advice. We also briefly look at the role of the expert advisor when there is a Single Joint Expert, and assessors and scientific advisors. And, of course, as always, you can also listen to 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.

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.

In the fourth article in the Working with expert witnesses series, Michael Kingman from Setfords Solicitors, discusses his experience of working with expert witnesses in clinical negligence. 

In his March 2026 article, Thomas Hamilton provides a clear exposition of the expert's role and best practice in serious injury litigation when acting for claimants. In clinical negligence claims, the role of the medical expert is even more critical, as expert evidence is required on breach of duty, causation, and condition/prognosis. This article offers selective comments on the practice and procedure relating to medical evidence, based on the author's experience, with the aim of providing practical guidance and, where appropriate, prompting reflection.

Recent events in the middle east have reminded us all how quickly dangerous situations can arise. Members may regularly act in conflict zones, or be offered work that requires them to travel to conflict zones to, for example, inspect property damage, etc.  

Before you accept instructions for international work in conflict zones, we recommend you stop and consider these points set out in this article.  

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 claimant was suing for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of assets used in its high-pressure aluminium diecasting business. The defendants’ expert received instructions that limited the scope of his investigation and analysis. While the judge accorded less weight to his evidence, he did not accept the claimant’s suggestion that the defendants’ expert ought to have either declined the instructions or proffered his opinion on wider valuation issues even in relation to issues outside of his instructions.

Working with expert witnesses... is a new monthly article series. The series takes a look at the role of expert witnesses in a range of sectors from the perspective of the legal and other professionals who work with them. If you are interested in being featured in the series, you can contact us at policy@ewi.org.uk. 

The first article in the series is by Richard Black and Jennifer Fitzmaurice from Eversheds Sutherland on their experience of working with expert witnesses in the construction industry. 

The judge found that the report by the claimants’ forensic accounting expert was not expert evidence because it simply reported what the underlying documents said in a more digestible way, without adding any expert opinion. On the one or two occasions where the expert did offer an opinion, they were not opinions on any accountancy matter.

The task for the expert in this case was enormous. Capacity is issue specific. This means that if the issue is someone’s capacity to conduct legal proceedings, in this case sixteen sets of proceedings, the expert has to consider each set of proceedings. The person may have the capacity to conduct some and not others.

Johnston v Financial Ombudsman Service [2025] EWCA Civ 551

It is not easy to appreciate the significance of this judgment for experts in general without reading the summary so the ‘Commentary’ is at the end. The neuropsychological test results are perhaps not of particular interest to psychologists and psychiatrists at this stage in the proceedings but may become so if the case does not settle and it goes to trial. 

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)