The Claimant asserted that the Defendant had infringed their patent for an electric shower-waster pump and control unit. The trial related to liability only. Both sides criticised the other’s expert. The Judge rejected these criticisms noting that, while he reached conclusions that differed from the experts in various places, he did not consider either expert to be unreliable or that their evidence generally should be discounted.

This month we have a special episode to celebrate 30 years since the Expert Witness Institute was launched on 8 November 2026. We are going to look back at the changes over the last 30 years within the world of expert evidence, look at how we have changed as an organisation, and also dip into the archive for our News Reel. 

The case concerned the non-payment by a tenant of a commercial service charge. In considering the tenant’s permitted contractual defences of “manifest or mathematical error or fraud”, the Supreme Court construed the meaning of “manifest error” narrowly.

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.