Case Updates

The Appellant, a citizen of Tajikistan, was appealing the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection claim. The Judge gained the distinct impression that the Appellant’s expert witness was simply advocating on behalf of the Appellant, rather than assisting the Tribunal by providing a critical, objective expert opinion on the context. In doing so, he trespassed into the role reserved for the Tribunal.

The proceedings related to a petition asserting unfair prejudicial conduct of the affairs of a company. The expert witness who provided valuation evidence, wrote to the court three months after the trial expressing concerns about his own valuation report.

The judgment dealt with the defendant's application for reverse summary judgment or to strike out the claimant's claim and the claimant's application to strike out the defendant's application and for a stay of related proceedings. The claimant attempted to submit a non-compliant report as 'independent expert evidence' to support his application without obtaining permission to do so.

Cam Askan v HM Land Registry [2026] EWHC 1352 (Ch)

The trial dealt with liability issues relating to the alleged use of prohibited defeat devices. That is, devices which reduce the effectiveness of a vehicle’s emission control system for which there is no excuse or applicable exception. The judge criticised three of the expert witnesses for not complying with their duties under Part 35, and praised others.

The Claimant brought a claim in negligence against the Defendant, a dental practitioner, about the Defendant’s alleged failure to provide her with adequate advice about the risks and benefits of the treatment options available to her. The Claimant’s expert lacked understanding of the Bolam test, had not considered the dental notes, and was forced to make significant concessions in the joint report.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant was in breach of the agreement between the parties for the supply of single alpha chain collagen. The judge was critical of the Claimant’s expert witnesses, in particular noting that he would have had to direct further accounting expert evidence be produced, if the evidence had been required.

In her judgment on X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child), the Judge was highly critical of the evidence and conduct during proceedings of one of the expert witnesses, a consultant neurosurgeon, Mr M. This judgment, which should be read alongside the earlier judgment, dealt with whether Mr M should be named within that published judgment.

This was a fact finding hearing into the death of a young child. The Judge found that the neurologist expert witness failed to discharge his duties as an expert witness to the family court.

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.