It is not easy to appreciate the significance of this judgment for experts in general without reading the summary so the ‘Commentary’ is at the end. The neuropsychological test results are perhaps not of particular interest to psychologists and psychiatrists at this stage in the proceedings but may become so if the case does not settle and it goes to trial. 

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

In the 16th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and Sean, discuss CV Writing. We look at the purpose of expert CVs, the rules and regulations, go through a couple of cases, before hearing some great advice from the members of the EWI Editorial Committee and from Beth Rigby who presents EWI's popular CV Writing webinar. You can also catch our 'What's going on at EWI' and 'Newsreel' segments to keep up-to-date on the latest developments in the world of expert witnesses and expert evidence. 

The claimant asserted that the defendant was required to transfer title in a vessel at the expiry of the bareboat counterparty between them. The judge noted that the claimant’s witness on insurance broking had essentially no experience in the matter for expert evidence and his views appeared to be based on conversations with unidentified others, rather than his own experience of testable research.

The RICS is seeking feedback from public stakeholders on the updating of its Professional Standard for Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses. The new 5th Edition is scheduled for publication in late 2025/early 2026 following the completion of the consulation . 

The Claimant brought a claim for compensation in the UK after he was hit by an uninsured driver while on holiday in Mallorca and suffered major injuries, including severe brain injuries. The court found the evidence of several of the experts to be unsatisfactory leading the judge to preface his assessment of the expert witnesses with the observation that “[t]he court is not bound by the conclusions of any expert if it offends logic and common sense. We do not have trial by experts.”

The Claimant brought a claim of clinical negligence after suffering a rare but serious complication (anal stenosis) of an operation performed by the Defendant to surgically remove her haemorrhoids. The judge found that the evidence of the Claimant’s expert was based on limited experience or expertise. There were also several instances where he had not acted in accordance with his duties as an expert.

In the 15th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkis, discuss the power of EWI membership and the practical and professional development that comes with EWI involvement. They unpack what EWI does, who it is for, the kinds of support and training we offer, and why being part of EWI could be a game changer for your expert witness career. Don't forget to also check out our 'What's going on at EWI' and 'Newsreel' segments to keep up-to-date on the latest developments in the world of expert witnesses and expert evidence. 

The judge found that an expert on risk assessment adopted an overly strict and slightly unrealistic approach in assessing the adequacy of a risk assessment conducted by a cycling club.

The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the snowmobile guides’ evidence, but positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour.