06 October 2020 Priya Vaidya 913 Case Updates Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 2299 (Ch) byPriya Vaidya Relevance: General Topic: Expert’s reasoning The Court was provided with the expert’s conclusions, but without being provided with the information to test whether any difference between the two companies was in LGAS’s or in ReAssure’s favour or how the conclusion that the difference was not material was justified. The court should therefore have sufficient information, not so as to review the independent expert’s “workings”, but so as to be able to assess that Mr Gillespie’s conclusions in this important respect are soundly based. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login Share Print Tags 10. Report Writing Related articles Elevate Your Expertise: Join the EWI's Inaugural Study Day in London An approach entirely contradictory to the duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses identified in The Ikarian Reefer Krzysztof Lukasik v Circuit Court, Praga in Warsaw (A Polish Judicial Authority) [2025] EWHC 282 (Admin) A Day in the Life of an Accountancy Expert Witness Kohler Mira Limited v Norcros Group (Holdings) Limited [2024] EWHC 3247 (Ch) Switch article Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Previous Article Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2020] EWHC 2235 (Fam), 2020 WL 04742216 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.