Day in the life of an Expert Witness

In this case the judge had a number of criticisms of the expert paediatrician and as a result there was a subsequent hearing to consider whether to identify Dr G. He was invited to attend the hearing and was represented by Counsel. Dr G sought for all references to him to be anonymised in the judgment. The other parties did not support anonymisation.

Kent County Council v M [2026] EWFC 212 (B) 

The case dealt with the claim by the landlord for breach of the tenant’s covenants and conditions following the expiry of the tenant’s lease on an office building in Dartford. Two of the experts in the case were disadvantaged by having to form their opinions on the basis of access to limited information and another by instructions which meant that his analysis was entirely premised on his clients’ case

This case is important for expert healthcare experts in delayed-diagnosis cases in Scotland, being brought under the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011, s 3,  but, relying on an English case, it may be relevant to healthcare experts outside Scotland. In a conventional causation case, an expert may be asked: ‘Would the patient have survived but for the alleged negligent delay?’ This case concerns whether the alleged breach of duty caused the loss of a chance of a better outcome.

Lever v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 89 

This is yet another case in which a medical report has been given little weight in immigration and asylum proceedings.

Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT HU507302025 (IAC)

The Claimant asserted that the Defendant had infringed their patent for an electric shower-waster pump and control unit. The trial related to liability only. Both sides criticised the other’s expert. The Judge rejected these criticisms noting that, while he reached conclusions that differed from the experts in various places, he did not consider either expert to be unreliable or that their evidence generally should be discounted.

Although this is an immigration and asylum case, in which country experts often provide evidence from a variety of sources about conditions in the applicant’s home country, it includes importance advice for all experts about the use of information on the internet.

SU v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Expert reports - format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 317 (IAC) 

The case concerned the non-payment by a tenant of a commercial service charge. In considering the tenant’s permitted contractual defences of “manifest or mathematical error or fraud”, the Supreme Court construed the meaning of “manifest error” narrowly.

This is a fascinating case in terms of the expert’s qualifications, training and experience. As a result of the expert not setting these out in the report, and for other reasons, the judge could attach little or no weight to the expert’s opinions.

RC v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT HU670752024 (IAC)