We have previously considered the problem for experts of redacted medical records. This, and the actual disclosure of medical, and also safeguarding, records is an issue in this ongoing personal injury case.

Although it illustrates the tests that the court will apply in deciding on disclosure of records, it also seems to illustrate the oft made point that a case turns on its own facts. In this case disclosure of records relating to a particular letter became unnecessary when it was established that the letter did not relate to the claimant. The relevance of the claimant’s mother’s immigration records arose out of the coincidence in time of a stage in her appeal process and a deterioration in the claimant’s condition.

RFV v Middleham [2026] EWHC 916 (KB) 

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.

In these professional disciplinary proceedings it was considered highly unusual for an expert to act on behalf of a Registrant having also provided a character reference in support of the same Registrant.

Mew v General Dental Council [2026] EWHC 1116 (Admin) 

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)

Despite attacks on the expert’s credibility, the judge provided praise for all three experts in the case of Gillian Dakin v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

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.

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.  

The importance of this case is that it confirms that medical practitioners providing evidence as to a patient’s fitness to participate in legal proceedings are providing expert evidence. It may be termed ‘professional’ evidence but it is expert evidence. It is expert evidence because the medical practitioner is assisting the court as to matters outside the knowledge and experience of the court. In this case the court depended on the applicant’s general practitioner to understand complex PTSD, spiking of blood pressure to dangerous levels and dysphonia and how they made the applicant unfit to participate in her appeal against the order made by the court as to the disposal of her son’s ashes.

Julie Karen Hoarean v Paul Anthony Read [2026] EWHC 763 (Ch)

The claimant was diagnosed in 2023 with mesothelioma, after attending his general practitioner complaining of shortness of breath. Initially, the treating hospital considered he was suffering from lung cancer but later, after further consideration, they revised their diagnosis to mesothelioma. The court found that when the expert for the claimant suggested molecular testing, he was seeking to explore the possibilities of resolving the diagnosis, while the court was troubled by the defedant's expert's view that it was not necessary to go on to consider molecular testing when the results of the immunohistology were available. 

David McNally v Gentoo Group Limited Neutral Citation Number [2026] EWHC 750 (KB)

The case of Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (T/A Hastings Insurance) [2026] EWHC 784 (KB) provides a good reminder that previous criticism can be brought up to discredit your expert evidence.