Case Updates

The Claimant was suing in relation to profound disabilities he suffered due to the Defendant’s admitted clinical negligence. While some of the experts were praised, some were severally criticised by the judge, particularly for failing to consider the range of opinion. Two of the experts were also significantly hampered by their nervousness in cross-examination. 

JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 2294 (KB)

Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. The Judge found that the expert evidence in the case of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction. This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.

The applicant, who required leases over mineral rights, could not agree with the owners of those rights on compensation and valuation issues. The expert witnesses for both parties had previously acted as expert advisors to their clients. However, while one expert witness understood that their role was not to advocate for a particular party or outcome but to assist the court, the other expert was unable to disassociate their longstanding role as an expert advisor from their duties to the court.

The trial dealt with liability issues relating to the alleged use of prohibited defeat devices. That is, devices which reduce the effectiveness of a vehicle’s emission control system for which there is no excuse or applicable exception. The judge criticised three of the expert witnesses for not complying with their duties under Part 35, and praised others.

The Claimant brought a claim in negligence against the Defendant, a dental practitioner, about the Defendant’s alleged failure to provide her with adequate advice about the risks and benefits of the treatment options available to her. The Claimant’s expert lacked understanding of the Bolam test, had not considered the dental notes, and was forced to make significant concessions in the joint report.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant was in breach of the agreement between the parties for the supply of single alpha chain collagen. The judge was critical of the Claimant’s expert witnesses, in particular noting that he would have had to direct further accounting expert evidence be produced, if the evidence had been required.

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 sought damages amounting to the difference between the £16.9 million contract sale price from a failed house sale and the sum ultimately obtained for the property of £10.1 million, less that £2.5 million forfeited deposit. After finding the expert evidence compromised by the information provided to the experts, the judge set out a better approach to expert evidence in property valuation.

After summarising the case law, the court in this case stated that there is a high threshold to be reached in order for ill health or physical disability to impinge upon the court's approach to assessing the appropriate method of sentencing an offender. This is not to say that ill health or disability will never be taken into consideration as is indicated by these terms: ‘not generally’, ‘not automatically’, ‘can take account’, ‘may enable’, ‘not in itself’, ‘it may be permissible’, ‘in appropriate cases’, ‘permissible to have regard’ and ‘purely on the basis’.

Lavery, R v (Sentencing Remarks) [2026] NICC 5

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.