The RICS has recently published the 5th edition of its Surveyors acting as expert witnesses professional standard (‘standard’). We participated in the RICS consultation on the draft standard, and we are pleased to note that most of the issues we raised have been addressed in the final published standard and practice guidance. However, we continue to have concerns that the standard and the practice guidance may have the potential to mislead experts into not fully complying with the applicable rules and regulations. 

The claimant alleged that the second defendant, a Spanish racing driver, had repudiated a binding agreement under which he was contracted to drive for the claimants’ IndyCar team for the 2024, 2025 and 2026 racing seasons. The judge found some of the expert witnesses to be impressive and independent, while the expert evidence of others was unimpressive and disappointing.  

The claimant, who suffered brain damage at birth, relied on a report commenting on the allegation of negligence prepared by Mrs S, a midwife. The judge was concerned about the objectivity of Mrs S’s expert evidence because she was heavily involved in the business of litigation and gave evidence which he considered was uncompromisingly critical of the defendant.

There are some general learning points for all experts but otherwise this is for neurosurgeons. It is another road traffic accident personal injury case in which the court needed the assistance of neurosurgeons, or at least it would have done but for the fact that it made a finding which made it unnecessary to consider the neurosurgical evidence before reaching a judgment. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant were not in dispute. What was in dispute, but ultimately irrelevant, was what the child’s injuries would have been if the driver of the vehicle had been driving (non-negligently) at a lower speed than he was. It was on this point that the neurosurgical experts disagreed.

MW v Wilkinson [2025] EWHC 2300 (KB) 

Top tips and new support available to ensure you remain complaint and provide a good quality CV.

The claimant brought an action against two of its founding shareholders, and companies owned or controlled by them, seeking compensation for harm caused by their alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme. The forensic accounting expert for the first defendant failed to inform the court, until shortly before he gave evidence, that he had ceased to hold a key professional membership.  

JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch)

In this appeal of an asylum decision, the court was unable to discern sustainable and tolerably clear reasons as to why the judge rejected the expertise of the expert witness and his expert opinion provided in his report.

A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest.

Recent case demonstrates how your credibility can be affected before you have even stepped into the court room.

Relevance:     General

Topics:           Professional address              

                        Experience

                        Appointments