06 October 2020 Priya Vaidya 1758 Case Updates Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 2299 (Ch) byPriya Vaidya Relevance: General Topic: Expert’s reasoning The Court was provided with the expert’s conclusions, but without being provided with the information to test whether any difference between the two companies was in LGAS’s or in ReAssure’s favour or how the conclusion that the difference was not material was justified. The court should therefore have sufficient information, not so as to review the independent expert’s “workings”, but so as to be able to assess that Mr Gillespie’s conclusions in this important respect are soundly based. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login Share Print Tags 11. Report Writing Related articles Civil Justice Council Consultation on Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents Moulding -v- BSA Group (SW) Ltd & others, HHJ Berkley, County Court at Bristol 16th January 2026 A Day in the Life of a Clinical Psychologist Expert Witness McLaren Indy LLC & Anor v Alpa Racing USA LLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 110 (Comm) Alame & Ors v Shell PLC & Anor [2025] EWHC 1539 (KB) Switch article Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Previous Article Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2020] EWHC 2235 (Fam), 2020 WL 04742216 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.