Overview

The courts regularly consider expert evidence and there are regular criticisms and critiques of the way in which such evidence is presented. 

This webinar looks at cases relating to experts in 2025.   This has been a year were that have been a large number of cases where experts (and sometimes those who have instructed them) have been criticised. It has also seen some extraordinary cases relating to  the conduct of experts.

This webinar looks at examples where experts have been criticised and the practical steps that litigators (and experts) can take to avoid problems in the future. 

What we have seen in 2025

Examples of expert and expert evidence being considered in the courts this year include:

• The expert who wrote to the court to state that my report was wrong (a £3.3 million valuation should have been “nil”)
• The case where the court found that a litigant had effectively written the joint report
• The clinical negligence expert who did not understand the Bolam test
• The expert who failed to consider new evidence and did not reconsider their opinion
• What happens when the parties cannot agree instructions to a joint expert
• When an expert “fights their corner” rather than gives impartial evidence
• When is expert evidence “reasonably required”?
• What is the court’s approach when an expert “changes their mind” (and this is to the advantage of those who instruct them?
• A “troubling” expert who was seeking to build a case rather than provide an independent analysis
• The expert who refused to give the court details of the test that led to assertions that the claimant was “malingering”
• Appeals against a judge’s findings that they preferred the evidence of the defendant’s expert
• The consequence of failure to comply with the pre-action protocol and inform an expert of the nature of the defendant’s case
• “Science does not change” -  “unimpressive” evidence considered by the courts
• “This case is not short of advocates”, the expert reporting for the claimant should not have been one of them
• When the defendant’s expert was “far better qualified” than the claimant’s expert
• What should the expert tell the court if they had been subject to membership of a professional organisation
• The expert who reported without all the available evidence to hand
• The duty to state the source of the expert’s information
• What weight is given to a non -part 35 compliant report?
• The expert’s report where the judge stated that the expert should consider repaying their fee
• Giving advance notice of the criticism of an expert
• Is a judge bound to follow the conclusions of a jointly instructed expert?
• The steps a party should take if they disagree with the report of a jointly instructed expert
• When experts take a “unrealistic” approach
• Experts who “trespass on the judicial function”
• The medical expert whose conduct led to them being erased from the register of doctors
• Can the court take a different view to unchallenged medical evidence?
• When an “expert” report was not impartial (it was from the claimant’s son)
• The expert who conceded that their evidence was “appalling”
• The two experts on loss who were “of no use to the court”
• The huge costs incurred in an unsuccessful application to adduce expert evidence
• When expert evidence was found to be not necessary or proportional
• When the judge preferred the expert with practical experience of the issue in hand
• When inaccurate information is not given to an expert
• Experts in clinical negligence cases – whose evidence was accepted and why?
• Changing an expert – obtaining the court’s permission
• The expert who “had no regard to the practice direction” and “who was prepared materially to mislead the court.”
• “This is not expert evidence but argument” a case in point
• The difficulties of attempting to introduce new expert at the appeal stage
• A claim against an allegedly dishonest expert was not struck out