22 May 2026 Sean Mosby 1074 Case Updates Car-Wizard Limited v Vixen Surface Treatments Limited [2026] EWHC 685 (Ch) by Sean Mosby Summary The claimant asserted misrepresentation and breach of a collateral contract by the defendant in respect of the supply of a vertical diamond cutting lathe for the claimant’s car wheel repair business. The judge found that the accountancy reports were not expert evidence but simply aids to understanding the details in a complex case. Learning points Simply applying arithmetic rules to data supplied to you, is not expert opinion. Experts must clearly distinguish between any factual evidence they are giving and their opinion as an expert. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags 07. Receiving Instructions16. Criticism and ComplaintsAccountancy11. Report Writing15. Giving Oral Evidence Related articles Downes v Ostrowicka 118DC085 Trinsic Collagen Limited v Procoll Limited [2026] EWHC 1793 (Ch) Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC 1685 (Comm) Working with Expert Witnesses: Single Joint Experts X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re Switch article Unregulated Experts in Family Court Children Proceedings Previous Article Praise for experts gives insight into what makes oral evidence credible Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.