The Claimant brought a claim for compensiation in the UK after he was hit by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Mallorca and suffered major injuries, including severe brain injuries. The court found the evidence of several of the experts to be unsatisfactory leading the judge to preface his assessment of the expert witnesses with the observation that “[t]he court is not bound by the conclusions of any expert if it offends logic and common sense. We do not have trial by experts.”

The Claimant brought a claim of clinical negligence after suffering a rare but serious complication (anal stenosis) of an operation performed by the Defendant to surgically remove her haemorrhoids. The judge found that the evidence of the Claimant’s expert was based on limited experience or expertise. There were also several instances where he had not acted in accordance with his duties as an expert.

In the 15th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkis, discuss the power of EWI membership and the practical and professional development that comes with EWI involvement. They unpack what EWI does, who it is for, the kinds of support and training we offer, and why being part of EWI could be a game changer for your expert witness career. Don't forget to also check out 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 Claimant sought damages for clinical negligence from the Defendant who, she asserted, failed to diagnose red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome at a face to face consultation. The Claimant’s neurorehabilitation expert prepared his reports, engaged in an expert discussion, and signed the Joint Statement, without having seen the Claimant’s witness statement or the reports of other relevant experts.

The House of Commons, Justice Committee has published a Call for Evidence for its Inquiry on Access to Justice. The Inquiry will examine how advice and legal services are adapting to secure access to justice across civil, criminal, and family law, and the impacts of the cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency.

The judge found that an expert on risk assessment adopted an overly strict and slightly unrealistic approach in assessing the adequacy of a risk assessment conducted by a cycling club.

The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the snowmobile guides’ evidence, but positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour.

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a new consolidation of the Criminal Procedure Rules and an accompanying guide. The new Rules will come into force on 6 October 2025.

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key Objectives. In this article, we set out the key points for expert witnesses and provide some initial guidance. 

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist would need to be instructed after the expert directly challenged the findings of the Court and the soundness of the evidence on which those findings were based. The Court denied the expert’s subsequent request for anonymity.

Liverpool City Council v A & Ors [2025] EWHC 1474 (Fam)