Case Updates

In her judgment on X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child), the Judge was highly critical of the evidence and conduct during proceedings of one of the expert witnesses, a consultant neurosurgeon, Mr M. This judgment, which should be read alongside the earlier judgment, dealt with whether Mr M should be named within that published judgment.

This was a fact finding hearing into the death of a young child. The Judge found that the neurologist expert witness failed to discharge his duties as an expert witness to the family court.

The Claimant suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident after the Defendant, who was driving out of a side road, collided with the Claimant’s motorbike. Despite being aware of surveillance evidence before preparing his last report, the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert did not reveal his true opinions on the Claimant’s malingering until cross-examination.

Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)

The parties disagreed on the extent of the repairs required to the joists, and the manner in which the repairs should be effected, following the collapse of part of the ceiling in a building owned by the Claimant and partly leased by the Defendant. The Judge found that the Defendant’s expert’s failure to engage with all the available evidence and to seek to undertake a fuller examination of the joists meant that his evidence did not fully address the issues before the court.

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) 

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)

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.

The claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident while she was the passenger in a car driven by her partner, who was the defendant’s insured. She claimed compensation for whiplash and psychological symptoms. The judge described the report of the physiotherapist expert witness who acted for the claimant as almost worse than useless and aspects of her evidence as literally unbelievable

Clark v Skyfire Insurance Company Limited, Canterbury County Court, 12th November 2025