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.

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 month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we preview the EWI  Annual Conference which will be held virtually on 19 June 2026. We look at some of the themes from expert witness conferences in 2025, including talking to Holly King about 'How to reduce the re-traumatisation of claimants in medico-legal litigation claims', consider the programme for our 2026 conference, and introduce a new segment on the podcast called 'A case that changed me'. 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 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.  

Recent events in the middle east have reminded us all how quickly dangerous situations can arise. Members may regularly act in conflict zones, or be offered work that requires them to travel to conflict zones to, for example, inspect property damage, etc.  

Before you accept instructions for international work in conflict zones, we recommend you stop and consider these points set out in this article.  

In April's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a deep dive into Marketing your Expert Witness Practice, providing practical advice on getting the basics right, developing a marketing strategy, and key marketing channels. 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.

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.

The Secretary of State for the Home Office was appealing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) to allow the Respondent’s appeal on Article 2 and 3 ECHR grounds against his deportation to Afghanistan. The Home Office did not seek to challenge the Respondent’s experts by requiring either of the experts to attend for cross-examination.