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.

“If an Expert, a lawyer, an accountant, an engineer, a doctor produce inaccurate or unreliable opinions or use hallucinatory references, they are likely to be liable in negligence, whether they’ve used AI or not.” Sir Geoffrey Vos KG, Master of the Rolls

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 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.

The case focussed on the validity of a will and codicil made by a wealthy lady, Mrs MacDougall, as well as a number of substantial gifts and transactions made in the years before her death. Both parties called experts in Old Age Psychiatry to provide evidence on issues of testamentary capacity, as well as Mrs MacDougall’s vulnerability to undue influence.

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)

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.

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.