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.

Having written in Hospital Update, 48 years ago, about routine parenteral thiamine alongside prophylaxis or treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, I read this with great interest. It should be of interest to physicians and psychiatrists but what is striking are the lessons for all experts. There is a long section in which the judge is critical of some of the experts and their evidence.

Although the detail of this judgment is for diabetologists and gastroenterologists it is of general interest with regard to its treatment of statistical evidence, reliance on odds ratios and relative risk ratios and the position taken by the court on the relationship between the civil standard of proof and confidence intervals.

Alexander v HCA International Ltd [2026] EWHC 1284 (KB) 

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

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 importance of this case is that it confirms that medical practitioners providing evidence as to a patient’s fitness to participate in legal proceedings are providing expert evidence. It may be termed ‘professional’ evidence but it is expert evidence. It is expert evidence because the medical practitioner is assisting the court as to matters outside the knowledge and experience of the court. In this case the court depended on the applicant’s general practitioner to understand complex PTSD, spiking of blood pressure to dangerous levels and dysphonia and how they made the applicant unfit to participate in her appeal against the order made by the court as to the disposal of her son’s ashes.

Julie Karen Hoarean v Paul Anthony Read [2026] EWHC 763 (Ch)

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)

Although the detail of McIntyre, R v [2026] NICC 2 will probably be of importance only for forensic science imagery analysts, it is important for experts in criminal cases in Northern Ireland, for forensic clinicians insofar as their activities fall within the remit of the Forensic Science Regulator, and it is of general interest as it illustrates the risks for experts instructed by the prosecution of not ensuring an appropriate distance from the investigating police officers.

Tasib, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 139 (Admin) makes for interesting reading because it illustrates what information lawyers and courts need when deciding which expert to instruct and how they look at experts’ fees and expenses. The cheapest report will not be provided by the expert with the lowest hourly rate if they spend much longer on the case than more expensive experts. It makes a difference whether there is a charge for travelling expenses.