01 April 2026 Keith Rix 683 Case Updates How fees and expenses are analysed in the age of remote consultations by Keith Rix 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 expense It considers ‘reading in’ which occurs when, usually in one case, the expert is assessing more than one person and so some or even all of the reading for the first case does not need to be repeated for the second case, etc. In such cases some experts adopt the practice of allocating to each case an appropriate percentage, e.g. 50%, 33%, 25% etc, of the ‘common’ reading and preparation time. Learning points The more information you can provide as to the breakdown of your fees and expenses, the easier it will be to compare the cost of your report with that of other potential experts. For psychiatry and psychology experts, the Brearly study may assist when justifying either an in-person or a remote neuropsychological assessment. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to judgment Share Print Switch article UPDATE: New Forensic Science Regulator guidance for declaring compliance with the code of practice Previous Article Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 149 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.