Few reported cases assist as to expert evidence in cases of harassment and on the issue of injury to feelings as distinct from psychiatric injury. This summary should be read for this reason. It illustrates how the expert should respond to less than neutral instructions. It illustrates how cardiological evidence was analysed in order for the court to conclude that the defendant’s course of conduct had caused a myocardial infarction. It also reveals the charitable aspect of pro bono legal practice.   

Wei v Long [2025] EWHC 912 (KB)

The defendants denied the validity of a will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity. The judge found that the conclusion of the jointly instructed expert as to testamentary capacity was inadequately reasoned and evidenced.

Carolyne Mary Parfitt v Victoria Jane Jones & Anor [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch)

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 all experts whose fees are to be paid by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA).

K, Re & Re S (Legal Aid: Experts' Fees) [2025] EWFC 100 

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 expert in allowing someone else in this firm to answer CPR 35 questions on his behalf. His report was also entirely equivocal on the key issues and therefore offered little or no assistance to the court.

Kate Rodgers v Laural Brookes [2025] EWCC 31

In this road traffic accident case where there was a claim for psychiatric injury, the two psychiatric experts produced between them 14 reports, including addenda and other admissible communications. The fundamental disagreement was the diagnosis: PTSD or adjustment disorder. It appears that four of the reports by the defendant’s expert were in rebuttal of the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert. This summary does not reflect the considerable extent to which the court had to analyse the evidence as to diagnosis. In the court’s judgment diagnosis hardly mattered. The judge said that more important, in his view, was the impact that the condition had on the plaintiff’s everyday functioning and lifestyle. Then when awarding damages, he said that the psychiatric damage suffered by the plaintiff attributable to the accident could be described as moderately severe whether that be under a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychiatric damage generally. 

Within this update we feature the well-publicised case of WH Holding Limited and E20 Stadium LLP [2025] EWHC 140 (Comm).  The case concerns a successful challenge of an expert’s decision in the context of a concession agreement for sporting events. 

The claim was initiated as a High Court claim for declaratory relief under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  The judgment was released in January of this year having been heard by Paul Mitchell KC last December. 

The claimant alleged both negligence and breach of contract by the defendant designer of a container park near Felixstowe Port. The judge set out the reasons why she was not impressed by the claimant’s expert and treated his evidence with significant caution.

MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)

There was no dispute about the expert evidence in this case but it is of interest for several reasons. First, it sets out in some detail the evidence of experts in educational psychology and occupational therapy and it therefore provides examples for those healthcare specialties of how to make their bodies of knowledge understandable to a tribunal. Second, it illustrates the role of experts when their evidence is admitted by a specialist tribunal. Third, it sets out the test of which experts need to be aware in cases of alleged disability discrimination arising from a school’s treatment of a pupil with behavioural difficulties. Fourth, although psychiatrists and psychologists are often advised to keep the unconscious out of the witness box, for reasons to do with proof, it is encouraging to find a tribunal accepting such evidence.

B v The Proprietor of St Dominic's Grammar School [2025] UKUT 48 (AAC) 

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners alleging that they failed to act on a potential diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease. The judge found that one of the GP experts had trespassed on the judicial function to determine the facts and had sought to advocate on behalf of the second defendant.

As in many family cases, the issue here was the cause of the child’s injuries. It includes a distinction to be made between handling in hospital, such as holding of wrists for blood to be drawn, application of masks to assist breathing and holding of head still, to what would be expected in a normal domestic setting. It illustrates how a CMV infection complicated the court’s analysis of the evidence.

N, In the Matter Of [2024] EWFC 378