06 October 2020 Priya Vaidya 2133 Case Updates Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 2299 (Ch) byPriya Vaidya Relevance: General Topic: Expert’s reasoning The Court was provided with the expert’s conclusions, but without being provided with the information to test whether any difference between the two companies was in LGAS’s or in ReAssure’s favour or how the conclusion that the difference was not material was justified. The court should therefore have sufficient information, not so as to review the independent expert’s “workings”, but so as to be able to assess that Mr Gillespie’s conclusions in this important respect are soundly based. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login Share Print Tags 11. Report Writing Related articles Gary Alexander MacDougall v Lloyd Philip Thomas & Ors [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch) Experts who rise above the fray and fully discharge their duties to assist the Court Car-Wizard Limited v Vixen Surface Treatments Limited [2026] EWHC 685 (Ch) Working with Expert Witnesses in Clinical Negligence Claims: Practical Considerations and Common Pitfalls David Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) Switch article Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Previous Article Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2020] EWHC 2235 (Fam), 2020 WL 04742216 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.