An ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion An ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion

An ounce of reasoning is worth a pound of opinion

The defendants denied the validity of a will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity. The judge found that the conclusion of...
Review of Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims Review of Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims

Review of Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims

The Civil Justice Council (‘CJC’) is intending to review its ‘Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims’ with a...
Update on EWI Advocacy Update on EWI Advocacy

Update on EWI Advocacy

One of the key roles of the Expert Witness Institute (‘EWI’) is to ensure that policy, rule and regulatory changes are informed by the...
Legal Aid: Experts' Fees Legal Aid: Experts' Fees

Legal Aid: Experts' Fees

This case is of obvious importance to experts authorised by the Family Court to be instructed in public law proceedings but it has implications for...
An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to... An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to...

An expert report that is entirely equivocal on the key issues is of little assistance to...

The court noted that the jointly instructed expert demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both CPR 35 and the duties owed to the court by an...
EWI Annual Conference 2025: Opening keynote looks at how to be a witness as well as an... EWI Annual Conference 2025: Opening keynote looks at how to be a witness as well as an...

EWI Annual Conference 2025: Opening keynote looks at how to be a witness as well as an...

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...

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.

Aerotoxic syndrome
Case Updates

Aerotoxic syndrome

Personal injury claims are being brought by approximately 220 pilots and cabin crew at the High Court in London on the grounds of aerotoxic syndrome (ATS). This group of claimants includes 51 claims which were issued by Thompsons in March 2019 involving pilots and cabin crew working for EasyJet, British Airways, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic. These two claims are not included in these ongoing English collective proceedings. These were claims by two pilots who lost the chance of bringing successful claims as a result of the admitted negligence of a Scottish law practice.

Gough v Cannons Law Practice; Montague-Trenchard v Cannons Law Practice (Court of Session) [2025] CSOH 28 

A mother's malign influence on her children
Case Updates

A mother's malign influence on her children

This is a case which will assume much greater importance for the 15 points of practice and practical steps that the judge decided can help reduce the risk of well-meaning professionals falling into pitfalls that hinder the identification of safeguarding issues at an early stage than as a case with learning points for experts.

For some of the experts in the fields from which jointly appointed experts were instructed, it illustrates how their evidence is tested and applied in a case of suspected fabricated or induced illness (FII).

Re N (Children: Fact Finding - Perplexing Presentation/Fabricated or Induced Illness) [2024] EWFC 326

Toxicological evidence in an environmental contamination case
Case Updates

Toxicological evidence in an environmental contamination case

The claimants, who claimed to have suffered personal injury caused by contaminants in a housing development, relied on the evidence of Professor T. The court found that Professor T did not provide any medically reasoned justification which would allow the court to make findings supporting his conclusions and did not explain in detail how he was able to reach his view on causation. The detail of this judgment is important for toxicology experts. It may be useful for medical experts as an example of the courts’ approach to causation.

Pelosi v Lanarkshire Housing Association Ltd [2024] ScotCS CSOH 56