The Claimants brought an action against the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Education, for negligence and misfeasance in public office, relating to the actions of the Skills Funding Agency (‘SFA’), for which the Defendant is responsible. The Claimants alleged that the acts of SFA prevented them from selling their business for around £27 million, plus a lost chance of converting around £10 million in rollover loan notes.

The Defendant issued an application to revoke the Claimants’ permission to rely upon their forensic accounting expert evidence, because it had become clear that one of the Claimants, who was a trained accountant, had had significant secret involvement in the preparation of the expert’s report and the Joint Statement.

A section of this judgment is headed ‘Directions concerning the medical expert’. There was no medical expert in this case. There was a report from a psychotherapist. The psychotherapist in question is not registered with the General Medical Council or the Health and Care Professions Council, and it appears that she is not registered with the UK Council of Psychotherapy or the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. This had been an issue in Dosti v SSHD [2002] UKIAT 04021 at §11 where it is stated that there was some doubt as to whether an accredited psychotherapist was an appropriate person to give an expert report on the psychiatric health of a claimant. In this case the tribunal had no evidence as to any accreditation whatsoever. 

Iqbal v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKAITUR UI2023001320

The pursuer’s vehicle was stationary at a red light when the defender’s insured collided with him, causing soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back and shoulder. The court commended the defender's expert for changing his opinion on whether a collison had occured after he was shown additional photographs during his examination-in-chief.

This judgment appears to provide some clarity on an issue about which seemingly conflicting advice is given to experts. It concerns the listing of documents and materials. 

Brown v Sterne [2025] NIMaster 15

The Petitioner, who was one of 15 candidates in an English Parliamentary By-Election, alleged that his vote count of 50 was fraudulently pre-determined. The expert statistician for the Petitioner based his opinion solely on the evidence of the Petitioner, which was contested. He was unaware of the contents of the Respondents’ witness statements and had not taken them into account.

This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out following a stroke. The court considered a number of relevant publications.

For experts in psychiatry and psychology, it is important as it illustrates how the court tests evidence in cases involving performance validity testing.

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB) 

The case was a claim in negligence arising out of complications following bariatric surgery. When he was asked during cross-examination to explain the Bolam test, the Claimant’s expert was not able to demonstrate an accurate understanding of, or ability to explain, the test.

One of the important differences between Ireland and other British Isles jurisdictions is in the procedures followed in personal injury litigation. This case is illustrative. If the plaintiff had brought his case in England or Wales, how would this case have progressed?

Keogh v O'Keeffe [2025] IEHC 26

A mother applied to set aside what she submitted were findings made five years ago by a district judge concerning the party’s two children in reliance upon a report prepared by Ms G. The court found that there was no doubt at all that the harm that Ms G put forward arose, in her view, from what she regarded as the mother’s behaviour in alienating the children. Ms G had carried out an assessment of the mother which included her own attachment and other behaviours, but that did not form a finding of fact about how the mother actually behaved. Therefore there were no findings with a solid foundation that the mother alienated the children even though the judge expressed it as such, and accordingly no findings to actually set aside.

The Claimant alleged that an accident five years earlier was the cause of the amputation of his lower leg. The judge criticised the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert, Professor H, for demonstrating at times a rather ‘loose approach’ to his expert evidence and a closed mindedness towards his evidence.