Review of 2025 Review of 2025

Review of 2025

EWI Chief Executive Officer, Simon Berney-Edwards, shares his thoughts on 2025, a year where Expert Witnesses have continued to come under increasing...
A deficient capacity assessment A deficient capacity assessment

A deficient capacity assessment

The task for the expert in this case was enormous. Capacity is issue specific. This means that if the issue is someone’s capacity to conduct...
The Isolation of Experts The Isolation of Experts

The Isolation of Experts

In this article, Dr Kay Linnell OBE talks about the role of the expert witness, and the problems that can be encountered when Instructing Parties go...

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.

The Cahill v Seepersad [2023] IEHC 583
Case Updates

The Cahill v Seepersad [2023] IEHC 583

The cout found that a financial expert's report was inadmissible as evidence because he was not properly independent or objective, while very little weight could be attributed to the report of an employment expert because he lacked expertise in the area in which he purported to give expert evidence. 

Admissibility or weight: what is the test for expert evidence?
News

Admissibility or weight: what is the test for expert evidence?

In an exceptional case, as here, where the expert singularly and spectacularly fails in their duties to the court, expert evidence may be deemed inadmissible and never get to the stage of being tested for weight.

Saxby v UDG Healthcare (UK) Holdings Limited [2021] EWHC 144 (Ch)
Case Updates

Saxby v UDG Healthcare (UK) Holdings Limited [2021] EWHC 144 (Ch)

The case: a claim arising out of the sale, by the Claimants (and the other shareholders) to the Defendant of their shareholdings contending that they were induced to sell by actionable misrepresentations, some of which were fraudulent, which also amounted to negligent misstatements.