Expert Matters - The Podcast

At a recent Frontier Economics Litigation event, the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, The Honourable Mrs Justice Bacon, warned that advocate economists, or economists who ignore obvious analytical points adverse to their client, were not helpful to the Tribunal and self-defeating for the expert.

The Claimant suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident after the Defendant, who was driving out of a side road, collided with the Claimant’s motorbike. Despite being aware of surveillance evidence before preparing his last report, the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert did not reveal his true opinions on the Claimant’s malingering until cross-examination.

Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)

The EWI has just published its new guide to Becoming and Expert Witness. Written by EWI Member Paul Beckett, the guide is aimed at those who are considering undertaking, or who have just begun undertaking, Expert Witness work.

The parties disagreed on the extent of the repairs required to the joists, and the manner in which the repairs should be effected, following the collapse of part of the ceiling in a building owned by the Claimant and partly leased by the Defendant. The Judge found that the Defendant’s expert’s failure to engage with all the available evidence and to seek to undertake a fuller examination of the joists meant that his evidence did not fully address the issues before the court.

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.

We have previously considered the problem for experts of redacted medical records. This, and the actual disclosure of medical, and also safeguarding, records is an issue in this ongoing personal injury case.

Although it illustrates the tests that the court will apply in deciding on disclosure of records, it also seems to illustrate the oft made point that a case turns on its own facts. In this case disclosure of records relating to a particular letter became unnecessary when it was established that the letter did not relate to the claimant. The relevance of the claimant’s mother’s immigration records arose out of the coincidence in time of a stage in her appeal process and a deterioration in the claimant’s condition.

RFV v Middleham [2026] EWHC 916 (KB) 

In these professional disciplinary proceedings it was considered highly unusual for an expert to act on behalf of a Registrant having also provided a character reference in support of the same Registrant.

Mew v General Dental Council [2026] EWHC 1116 (Admin) 

The case concerned around 40 studio recordings of performances which were given by the members of the Jimi Hendrix Experience. The expert witnesses in New York law were commended by the judge on their written and oral evidence. The judge was not persuaded by any of the criticisms of the claimants' expert made by the defendant.  

Noel Redding Estate Ltd & Anor v Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited [2026] EWHC 983 (Ch)

From March to June 2025, the Family Procedure Rule Committee held a consultation on new Family Procedure Rule 25.5A concerning the instruction of unregulated experts. The Committee has now indicated that changes to the FPR on unregulated experts in children proceedings will be included in the next statutory instrument, expected in July, alongside the corresponding practice direction changes.

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.