This is primarily a case for cardiologists, cardiac nurses and anaesthetists with a learning point for psychiatric experts. Viewed from outside the jurisdiction the striking feature of the case is that the plaintiff’s general practitioner records documenting a previous psychiatric history, which she had denied when assessed by the two psychiatric experts, were not disclosed to the defendant until five days into the trial.

Tynan v Bon Secours Health System Company Ltd by Guarantee [2025] IEHC 81 

The detail of this judgment is for experts who conduct capacity assessments. Two points arise of more general interest.

First, the expert, who had been involved in the case for six years, changed her opinion. In the language of the court it was a 180^o degree change. The court thought that this called for a greater discussion in the analysis section of the report. This seems to have been that section of the report for which experts use the heading ‘Facts and assumed facts’ or ‘Factual analysis’. Second, the expert suggested that the issues, or some of the issues, in the case could be resolved by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court. But there had been no application for the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, it was not referred to in the letter of instruction, and it might not – as a matter of law – have been available. This is a good example of the advice to experts to leave the law to the lawyers.  

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v LS [2025] EWCOP 10 (T3)

This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s account. This is not the same as advising the court as to the reliability of the subject. It is the reliability of the account that is being assessed, not the reliability of the person giving the account. This is why it is good practice to open the Opinion section of an expert report with an introductory section sometimes headed ‘Evaluation of evidence’ or sometimes ‘Clinical plausibility’. That there was no challenge to the reliability of the experts’ evidence is not surprising. They explained how they assessed the appellant and the duration of the assessments.

ZA v Cornetu District Court, Romania [2025] EWHC 595 (Admin)

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related to AI in the legal sector, hear from EWI member and computer expert Richard Marshall, listen to some of the ways AI is currently being used by Expert Witnesses, and discuss some dos and don'ts when using AI. As usual, we begin with our segment on 'What's going on at EWI?' and end with 'Newsreel', a quick fire discussion of the key things you need to know this month. 

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub (https://www.ewi.org.uk/Knowledge-Hub). Prepared with the input of members and the EWI Editorial Committeee, the guidance includes lots of invaluable advice for navigating each of the key stages in expert discussions and joint statements, form and content, joint statement templates, and how to avoid the common pitfalls. 

The expert paediatrician in this case misidentified and confused twins when reading the primary medical disclose. This fundamental error was of seminal importance in this case because the twins had very different birth and post-birth experiences, with one being much weaker and more vulnerable than the other.  The judge noted that the cross-examination of the expert was nothing short of a demolition of the expert’s evidence.

LB Croydon v D (critical scrutiny of the paedeatric overview)

Mr Simon Britten, immediate past chair of the British Orthopaedic Association Medico-legal Committee, in his foreword to the forthcoming Expert Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Evidence, refers to how giving evidence one Monday in a case of tibial fracture, missed compartment syndrome and subsequent amputation, he was asked when he had last fixed a tibial fracture. Understandably, he said that the judge’s reaction to his answer ‘last Friday’ appeared to be a promising start. However, it is not a hard and fast rule that the healthcare expert should have experience, or recent experience, of performing the procedure or operation in issue. This case illustrates it.

Advanced Hair Technology Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether hair transplants to treat androgenetic alopecia are exempt supplies of medical care) [2025] UKFTT 241 (TC) 

The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if admissible, was neither necessary nor of assistance to the court.

The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors.  Both sides approached their instructions to their expert from different angles which caused difficulties at trial.  This explained why the valuations were worlds apart (or as the judge commented they had a “manifestly excessive difference”) and needed some careful scrutiny and assessment by the judge. Whilst the approach of examining both valuations is very case specific, there are some fundamental tests which can be taken away.  An objective test was used several times as a benchmark looking at the scope of works that a ‘reasonable owner’ or ‘purchaser’ would require.  The key legal issue of “proportionality” was also visited frequently throughout the assessment of valuations. 

Iya Patarkatsishvili & Anor v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)

The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration.  

MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)