4 August Case Updates Downes v Ostrowicka 118DC085 Dentistry, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Bolam Test 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.
28 July Case Updates Trinsic Collagen Limited v Procoll Limited [2026] EWHC 1793 (Ch) 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence 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.
20 July News Working with Expert Witnesses: Single Joint Experts 07. Receiving Instructions, 09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert, 06. Rules and Regulations, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements In the fifth article in the Working with expert witnesses series, Richard Lodge a Partner at Stewarts, discusses his experience of working with Single Joint Experts.
16 July Podcast Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026 07. Receiving Instructions, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 17. Maintaining your professional edge, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at the EWI Annual Conference which was held on 19 June. The Conference got off to a great start with a keynote speech on AI & the Expert Witness by Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, and carried on with great speakers and panels. Join us on a trip down memory lane as we relive our key highlights from the event.
13 July Case Updates X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child: Expert Evidence), Re [2025] EWFC 132 family court, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Neurologist 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.
22 June News Advocate Economists and the Competition Appeal Tribunal 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Competition Appeals Tribunal At a recent Frontier Economics Litigation event, the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, The Honourable Mrs Justice Bacon, warned that advocate economists, or economists who ignore obvious analytical points adverse to their client, were not helpful to the Tribunal and self-defeating for the expert.
3 June Case Updates Gary Alexander MacDougall v Lloyd Philip Thomas & Ors [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch) 11. Report Writing, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements 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.
14 May Case Updates David Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) 16. Criticism and Complaints, 11. Report Writing, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements 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.
5 May Case Updates Mesothelioma or lung cancer? Histopathology, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Mesothelioma, Lung Cancer, Molecular analysis 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)
23 March News Working with Expert Witnesses in Serious Injury Personal injury, CPR, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, Serious injury, Trauma Informed Assessment Working with expert witnesses... is a new monthly article series. The series takes a look at the role of expert witnesses in a range of sectors from the perspective of the legal and other professionals who work with them. If you are interested in being featured in the series, you can contact us at policy@ewi.org.uk. In the second article in the series, Thomas Hamilton, a Senior Solicitor at Thompsons Solicitors, discusses his experience of working with expert witnesses in serious injury claims.