EWI Chief Executive Officer, Simon Berney-Edwards, shares his thoughts on 2025, a year where Expert Witnesses have continued to come under increasing scrutiny.

 

As we come to the end of the year, I’m taking the opportunity to reflect on yet another interesting year for Expert Witnesses. Once again, there have been several high-profile cases which have reflected the best and worst in Expert Evidence. So here are my top ten takeaways from 2025.

 

1. Scrutiny of experts increases and more calls for regulation

It feels like every year I make a statement about the increasing scrutiny of Expert Witnesses. I think this has increased even further because there is greater public awareness of the role of Expert Witnesses. Cases such as the Horizon IT Post Office scandal  and the Lucy Letby case have really heightened public understanding of the key role that Expert Witnesses play in  litigation.

 

In the summer, the Guardian ran a series of articles about this calling for greater levels of regulation of expert witnesses. There is a real opportunity for the Expert Witness profession to set out why those who have had appropriate training should be preferred when selecting an expert for a case.

 

As Lady Simler said in her Sir Michael Davies lecture:

“As we know all too well from the experience of criminal courts recently, expert evidence that is properly presented and impartially delivered has the power to ensure that those who are guilty are convicted and that those who are innocent are detected, and the same is true in civil cases.

In other words, our concern is not simply one of technical accuracy, but it's the contribution that you as experts can make to just and fair outcomes through the communication of reliable expert findings.

The justice system really does depend on high quality experts with a commitment to excellence, with a commitment to integrity and to maintain high standards.

And that, of course, is essential for the legal system and ultimately for a society that trusts in the integrity of the legal system.”

 

2. Make sure you tell your instructing party of any loss of professional memberships

In the case of JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors, the claimant was seeking compensation for harm caused by the defendants’ alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme. Mr D, the forensic accounting expert for the first defendant, failed to inform the court that he had ceased to hold a key professional membership.  

 

The judge concluded that:

“where an expert presents his evidence as a member of a professional organisation, which is expected by him to give the court assurance as to his ability to act in the case, he is under a duty to inform the court if his membership has ceased, more particularly where the cessation is linked to disciplinary proceedings against him.”

 

This provides a timely reminder that you should inform the parties and the court if, after your expert report is filed, you cease to be the member of a professional organisation which is relevant to the expert evidence you have provided. And, that you should always consider whether you should inform your instructing party following any material change in your qualifications or accreditations.

 

3. Getting your cv right

In GKE v Gunning the judge observed that the claimant had instructed the wrong type of medical expert. The judge noted that the expert:

• • had not set out his qualifications in any CV attached to his report, which the judge noted was always necessary for experts to prove their expertise, and
  • he did not have the qualifications and training or the experience and practice in the defendant’s field of practice.

 

And in Dusko Knezevic v The Government of the Republic of Montenegro , the court found that the expert’s qualifications and experience did not demonstrate that he is an expert on the issues in the appeal on which he wishes to comment.

 

Earlier in the year we released new guidance to support expert witnesses with their CVs. Our toolkit contains practical guidance for all expert witnesses irrespective the amount of expert witness experience that they have. We recommend that all experts carry out a regular review of their CV to optimise its content. It may also be appropriate in some circumstances to tailor your CV to a particular case where your expertise has been sought. The toolkit covers the Types of Expert Witness CV, rules and regulations, Practice Tips, Compiling your expert CV, and What not to include in your CV.

 

4. Make sure you pay attention to the rules and regulations

For those who regularly read our case updates you’ll be aware of the number of judgments highlighting the importance of expert witnesses following the rules and regulations.

So this year I am going to highlight one example when an expert was commended. One of these was Coldunell Limited v Hotel Management International Ltd, where the court praised an expert who engaged constructively, gave concise and honest answers, accepted limitations, and made concessions where appropriate, demonstrating a genuine commitment to assisting the court. The judge said that the expert
 

“gave his evidence in a forthright and measured manner. He answered the questions put to him clearly accepting the limits of his knowledge in relation to certain matters. He made concessions in relation to certain items such as betterment to the boiler installation and the extent of the alleged furniture damage. I think that overall Mr. Lane was seeking to assist the Court and that he well understood that he had an independent role to perform.”

 

And of course if you do want to learn from others, remember that we have a growing number of case updates on our website with key learning points for Experts Witnesses and, where appropriate, instructing parties.

 

5. AI - pitfalls and opportunities

We have spoken a lot on our podcast about AI and I would really recommend that if you haven’t, go back and listen to Episode 11.

 

The legal press has continued to highlight cases where it has been found that lawyers have used AI and references and case law have been hallucinated by the AI system.

 

We are working on some guidance which we aim to publish in the new year. But as a reminder we recommend that experts use AI carefully and make sure they:

• Understand how specific AI tools work before using them
• Do not submit confidential data or information into a public AI tool and, unless they know otherwise, assume that any information they input could end up in the public domain
• Consider using AI for research and to help with summarising information or rewording text, but always verify any information produced by an AI tool.
• Do not rely on AI to write their opinion

 

6. Informing instructing parties of previous criticism

Earlier in the year we reported on a judgement from The Honourable Mr Justice Trower in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors which asserted that Expert Witnesses have a duty to disclose previous criticisms of their evidence in judgments.

 

We believe it is unfair to say that Expert Witnesses have a duty to share this criticism since this is infrequently shared with them.

 

The EWI Board shared their views on what they believe are fair expectations on experts and you can read this in the full article but the key recommendations are:

• Do ask your Instructing Party for feedback and to send you a copy of any judgment, particularly if you gave evidence in a court/tribunal.
• If you are aware of any previous criticism, you should declare this to any Instructing Party.
• If you have been the subject of criticism, take the time to reflect on the criticism and consider how you might amend your practice. Undertake further training where necessary.

 

7. Increasing importance of ADR

The increasing importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution after the decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council and the consequent changes to the Civil Procedure Rules to promote ADR was one of my ten from last year, but I think it has an important place on this year’s list too.

 

As well as the changes made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to promote the use of ADR we also saw amendments to the Arbitration Act 1997 come into effect.

 

There are lots of opportunities for experts across many fields in ADR proceedings. It does mean learning about new types of proceedings and some differences in the expert’s role, but it’s definitely worth looking into for experts in fields where ADR is often used. It also offers a great chance potentially to work in other jurisdictions. So, if you’re interested do check out our new ADR resources.

 

8. Transparency and open justice

For any experts who have not read up on the Transparency and Open Justice Board, it is really important so you can understand the momentum behind the agenda and what this means for you as an Expert Witness.

 

You can listen to Episode 19 of our podcast or you can access our briefing on the Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot which will be running on a number of Civil courts from the New Year. The webinar includes key recommendations for experts to build into their ongoing practice.

 

9. Responsibilities for retirement

Over the last year we have had numerous questions posted to the member helpline asking about the duties and responsibilities of experts when they intend to retire.

 

So we have now developed guidance which sets these out and what you need to consider before you close down your expert witness practice.

 

10. Don’t suggest they should google it

And finally, I really couldn’t resist highlighting the one case which really made my jaw drop this year.

 

In MJS Projects Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited, the claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution.

 

She noted that the lack of asking the right question pervaded the entirety of Mr A’s evidence.

 

The judgment is well worth a read – but the bit that struck me was that when asked how the court was supposed to understand Finite Element analysis modelling (a method for numerically solving differential equations arising in engineering and mathematical modelling) without an explanation, the expert said the court could “Google” it and that would probably give a better answer than he could.

 

I am sure none of our readers would ever suggest something like that in oral evidence!

 

If you would like to hear more about this, why not check out our Review of 2025 podcast episode which covers these topics and much more! 

 

And with that I wish you every success for the New Year.