Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch) Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch)

Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch)

The proceedings related to a petition asserting unfair prejudicial conduct of the affairs of a company. The expert witness who provided valuation...
Podcast Episode 29: Acting for Litigants in Person Podcast Episode 29: Acting for Litigants in Person

Podcast Episode 29: Acting for Litigants in Person

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss acting for litigants in person. The accessibility of tools like generative AI is making...
A Day in the Life of a General Practitioner Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a General Practitioner Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a General Practitioner Expert Witness

Dr Frances Cranfield is a GP, Assistant Coroner, and a founding member of the Expert Witness Institute. With three decades of experience spanning...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Graham Harry Moore v Sarah Joanne Pochin MP & Anor [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB)
Sean Mosby 1631

Graham Harry Moore v Sarah Joanne Pochin MP & Anor [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB)

by Sean Mosby

 

Summary

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.

Learning points

  • Make sure that you have been provided with all witness evidence so that you are aware of, and are in the position to address the consequences of, any differences in the factual evidence served by the parties, when expressing your expert opinion. You should be especially vigilant if you have been instructed by a litigant in person.

  • Your duty to be independent could be compromised by opinions you have published about, or interactions you have had with, the opposing party. Raise these with your instructing party, consider whether to disclose them in your report and, if the actions have significantly compromised your position, consider declining instructions.

  • Ensure that any statistical analysis you conduct is robust and defensible.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.