We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub (https://www.ewi.org.uk/Knowledge-Hub). Prepared with the input of members and the EWI Editorial Committee, the guidance includes lots of invaluable advice for navigating each of the key stages in expert discussions and joint statements, form and content, joint statement templates, and how to avoid the common pitfalls. 

The expert paediatrician in this case misidentified and confused twins when reading the primary medical disclose. This fundamental error was of seminal importance in this case because the twins had very different birth and post-birth experiences, with one being much weaker and more vulnerable than the other.  The judge noted that the cross-examination of the expert was nothing short of a demolition of the expert’s evidence.

LB Croydon v D (critical scrutiny of the paedeatric overview)

Mr Simon Britten, immediate past chair of the British Orthopaedic Association Medico-legal Committee, in his foreword to the forthcoming Expert Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Evidence, refers to how giving evidence one Monday in a case of tibial fracture, missed compartment syndrome and subsequent amputation, he was asked when he had last fixed a tibial fracture. Understandably, he said that the judge’s reaction to his answer ‘last Friday’ appeared to be a promising start. However, it is not a hard and fast rule that the healthcare expert should have experience, or recent experience, of performing the procedure or operation in issue. This case illustrates it.

Advanced Hair Technology Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether hair transplants to treat androgenetic alopecia are exempt supplies of medical care) [2025] UKFTT 241 (TC) 

The judge determined that the proposed expert evidence, to support the existence of a money laundering scheme, was not admissible and, even if admissible, was neither necessary nor of assistance to the court.

The complexities of this case required both parties to engage expert quantity surveyors.  Both sides approached their instructions to their expert from different angles which caused difficulties at trial.  This explained why the valuations were worlds apart (or as the judge commented they had a “manifestly excessive difference”) and needed some careful scrutiny and assessment by the judge. Whilst the approach of examining both valuations is very case specific, there are some fundamental tests which can be taken away.  An objective test was used several times as a benchmark looking at the scope of works that a ‘reasonable owner’ or ‘purchaser’ would require.  The key legal issue of “proportionality” was also visited frequently throughout the assessment of valuations. 

Iya Patarkatsishvili & Anor v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)

The parties sought permission to rely on expert evidence from three experts in respect of the claimant’s tazkira, an official identity document issued by the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judge found the first proposed expert’s evidence to be hearsay, and (if the proceeding continued) directed the parties to re-serve the second expert’s report with evidence for which permission had not been given excised, and to re-serve the third expert’s report with a compliant declaration.  

MS, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2024] EWHC 2661 (Admin)

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘Committee) decided, provisionally, to postpone the extended Fixed Recoverable Cost (‘FRC’) stocktake, which was initially planned for February 2025, until October 2025, while the the cost which may be recovered to obtain medical reports in low value road traffic accident related soft tissue and whiplash injury claims is being uprated by 25.4%.

The judge determined that the evidence of the defendant’s expert on the mental health of a man detained by the police was to be preferred in every respect over the claimant’s expert because he had relevant experience of the matters in respect of which he was giving evidence and adopted the right approach.

In recent years a range of stakeholders have raised concerns regarding unregulated experts providing evidence in family law court cases and the standard of the evidence they provide. The Family Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on new FPR 25.5A with the aim of requiring any expert instructed in family law children proceedings to be regulated. A key purpose of the changes is to ensure that any expert instructed in family law children proceedings has the appropriate skills and qualifications on which to base their expert evidence. 

While there are many respectable and legitimate expert witness agencies who provide brilliant support to the expert witnesses who work with them, the EWI has had continuing reports of the activities of some unethical agencies who prey upon experts who do not have a good understanding of expert witness work or who may be vulnerable to such approaches for other reasons. We do not want any expert to fall victim to an unscrupulous agency, so we have prepared a short guide setting out the red flags to watch out for in the approach of an unethical agency and, conversely, the sorts of positive signs to expect from a respectable and legitimate agency, including a quick checklist to complete.