The Claimant was suing in relation to profound disabilities he suffered due to the Defendant’s admitted clinical negligence. While some of the experts were praised, some were severally criticised by the judge, particularly for failing to consider the range of opinion. Two of the experts were also significantly hampered by their nervousness in cross-examination. 

JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 2294 (KB)

The EWI held the annual Scottish Medicolegal Conference at the Grand Central Hotel in Glasgow on 18 September. The event featured great speakers and panels and lots of interaction with the audience of expert witnesses and legal professionals.

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Membership Manager, Will Watkiss, discuss the EWI's project to map the Expert Witness workforce. We talk to Will Jackson from Whitespace Strategy who led the initial stage of the project, discuss the EWI survey of expert witnesses, and talk about the project's findings. After listening to the podcast, you can click on the link in the shownotes and read the full findings in the Workforce Mapping Research Report. 

We have revised our recently published Guidance for experts on acting for litigants in person. After engagement with members, we have decided to amend our advice on whether to act for litigants in person to balance more appropriately the importance of facilitating access to justice while retaining appropriate safeguards for experts. 

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 Appellant, a citizen of Tajikistan, was appealing the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection claim. The Judge gained the distinct impression that the Appellant’s expert witness was simply advocating on behalf of the Appellant, rather than assisting the Tribunal by providing a critical, objective expert opinion on the context. In doing so, he trespassed into the role reserved for the Tribunal.

The applicant, who required leases over mineral rights, could not agree with the owners of those rights on compensation and valuation issues. The expert witnesses for both parties had previously acted as expert advisors to their clients. However, while one expert witness understood that their role was not to advocate for a particular party or outcome but to assist the court, the other expert was unable to disassociate their longstanding role as an expert advisor from their duties to the court.

The proceedings related to a petition asserting unfair prejudicial conduct of the affairs of a company. The expert witness who provided valuation evidence, wrote to the court three months after the trial expressing concerns about his own valuation report.

The Claimants, who were trustees of an angling association which has fishing rights on the River Tees, asserted that the Defendant had interfered with their property rights. The Judge was disappointed that the hydrology experts had inspected the river when it was in very different conditions of water flow. The expert hydrology evidence was also limited to water flow, with no expert evidence available to the Judge on the impact on fish or fishing. One of the experts had also failed to comply with CPR Part 35.

The judgment dealt with the defendant's application for reverse summary judgment or to strike out the claimant's claim and the claimant's application to strike out the defendant's application and for a stay of related proceedings. The claimant attempted to submit a non-compliant report as 'independent expert evidence' to support his application without obtaining permission to do so.

Cam Askan v HM Land Registry [2026] EWHC 1352 (Ch)