Some specialist areas of expertise are so niche that it’s almost impossible to find experts who are free of previous involvement with one or more parties to a dispute. In a recent case requiring expert evidence in mine surveying (Cleveland Potash Ltd v Drummond & Ors) not only had both experts been involved with the parties they had worked in the same office as each other for 20 years!

In this case both experts were clear and transparent about their previous involvement and as the  judge explained, “Whilst neither party raised any concerns about the experts’ prior and ongoing involvement in the issues related to this dispute I will have to consider that involvement as part of my overall assessment of the experts. I remind myself that the experts have an overriding duty to the court which should override their duty to their clients.”

It seems that one expert was much more successful in retaining her objectivity than the other, reading the judge’s explanation gives some important pointers for all experts as to how to do this, specifically;

“Mrs Iwanicki was a very impressive witness. She was deeply knowledgeable about her subject. She gave clear, careful, well considered and measured answers to the questions she was asked. She had a good understanding of her overriding duty to assist the court rather than to advocate for a particular position. Her answers were honest and straightforward even where those answers might have been seen as providing some assistance to Rs. That is what the court expects of an expert witness who understands that their role is not to advocate for a particular party or outcome but to assist the court.

 

Mr Troman was also clearly very knowledgeable about his subject, however, unlike Mrs Iwanicki on some occasions he did not appear able to disassociate his longstanding role of assisting the Rs (and other leaseholders) to negotiate what he considered to be a satisfactory outcome with CPL from his duty to assist the court. This more partisan approach had infected some of his evidence and the contents of his report. It was clear from his evidence that he felt that other mineral rights owners who had now agreed terms with CPL should have held out and/or would have done better if they had followed his advice/recommendations. He was reluctant to accept the possibility that the conclusions in his report might need to be adjusted or modified even when it became apparent that there were factors or information that he had not known about and could not therefore have taken into account when reaching his conclusions. His resistance to accepting any possibility that his conclusions on valuation might need to be adjusted was unhelpful and undermined his position. Further he had a tendency to speculate both in his report and in his evidence and on at least one occasion asserted a factual position which turned out not to be true. Overall, this approach undermined his credibility and the weight that I give his expert opinion.

 

As always the key for any expert is to ask yourself ‘what would I say if I was acting for the other side?’. If the answer is in any way different then you need to think again. For guidance on what to do if you have been involved with a party to a dispute and other issues relating to conflicts or perceived conflicts see our guidance on the subject.

Our image is from the New Scientist

 

No doubt at least some members will have received some shiny new tech gadgets in their Christmas stockings, but as you  get to know the latest toys we start 2026 with a reminder to be aware of the possibility that meetings may be recorded without your knowledge.

In a recent case involving  expert neuro-psychological tests relating to a whiplash injury (Celikdemir v PGR Timber Ltd) it transpired that the claimant, despite being asked to turn off her phone, had continued to record the examination using a smart watch on the advice of her solicitor.

This was despite both legal teams having formally agreed that the tests would not be recorded and the solicitor in question stated that  at the time of giving this advice “I was oblivious of the agreement at the CMC a year earlier not to record the neuropsychological testing. Had I been cognisant of that agreement, that would have swayed me into advising the claimant not to record and simply to run the risk of not having the backup of a recording.”

The existence of the recording became significant because there was an argument about whether background noise had impacted the tests and at first glance it seemed there was an imbalance between the experts, since one had the client’s covert recording and the other did not. But in a final twist it transpired that the software used to record the results of the test had automatically being taking an audio recording without the experts knowledge. This was retrieved and the experts were able to revert to a level playing field.

The message for experts is twofold. Firstly, if recordings are not to be taken make sure the client has turned off ALL possible devices and secondly make sure you know what the software you use is doing!

Our picture is from Reolink

At the risk of upsetting vegetarians or anyone who’s had a little too much turkey we thought we’d suggest you make use of the Christmas to New Year lull to think about freshening up your online presence by roasting it!

The advent of AI tools has generated a range of websites that will give you an automated review of your website a practice known as ’roasting’  – for example https://bugsmash.io/roast-my-website/, https://chatgpt.com/g/g-O3tctcceY-roast-my-website, https://unicornplatform.com/roast-my-website/ and many others. Many of the offer a level of ‘heat’ in the roast and we recommend dialling things down a little for your first attempt unless you have stratospheric levels of self-confidence. To set the scene The Academy’s roast in a  mild level concluded with “If at first, you don’t succeed, try removing all the overly serious content and injecting some charm instead!” – less complimentary roasts were available but we don’t plan to share them!

If you don’t fancy a roast it’s still worth trying to view your website, LinkedIn profile and Academy profile with an objective eye. Have you updated them recently, do your pictures reflect who you are now or a you from 20 years ago and do you set out your stall as an expert clearly and succinctly? If not maybe an update is in order.

Your Academy profile will be at https://academyofexperts.org/search-register/profile/firstname-lastname or just type your name and ‘Academy of Experts’ into Google to see how you look to the outside world. To change your profile login to https://academyofexperts.org and click on the Profile button. You can link the profile to your website to your LinkedIn profile

It’s also worth linking the other way so that your LinkedIn profile takes people to your Academy entry – there are two ways to do that, both accessed by editing the Intro section of your LinkedIn profile;

1. Add Academy membership as a new Current Position
2. Add Edit Contact Info to add a Website link to your Academy profile (https://academyofexperts.org/search-register/profile/firstname-lastname)

Remember, If you’re a lawyer looking for an expert you can search the Academy’s register for an accredited expert or contact us directly for assistance.

If you would like to join the Academy but are unsure if you have the appropriate skills please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we will help you identify the appropriate membership level for you. Other benefits of membership include guidance and advice on being an expert, regular member meetings to discuss issues affecting experts and access to specialised PI insurance.

 

Our picture is from https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/perfect_roast_turkey_72482

Expert witnesses play a key role in the justice system and it has always been the case that expert reports and other documents referred to in court were in the public domain. But getting hold of them has not been straightforward and concerns were raised in Lady Hale’s judgment in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 a  case relating to asbestos exposure. This set out something of a mish-mash of practices and rules and the issue, together with the increasing reliance on electronic court bundles gave rise to the work of  Transparency and Open Justice Board.

The resulting Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot, postponed from earlier this year, will now go live on 1^st January 2026, initially for year. Details of the pilot are set out in Practice Direction 51ZH but the key points that experts should take note of are as follows;

• Pilot covers Commercial Court and London Circuit Commercial Court of the King’s Bench Division and  the Financial List (Commercial Court and Chancery Division) only.
• It affects any documents that have already been filed with the court and which are then relied on in court from January 2026, not just new documents.
• Affected documents include expert reports and annexes and appendices to expert reports;
• Expert reports these must be filed within 14 days of being relied on (submissions, skeletons within 2 days).

Filing of reports will be the norm, exceptions require a Filing Modification Order or FMO to be applied for.

In summary while expert reports were always theoretically available to non-parties access should become a great deal easier, see the Academy website for more detailed guidance.

Only time will tell whether the press or public will have an appetite for reading sometimes complex and lengthy reports on forensic accounting, construction or IT but experts should make sure, as always, that their opinions are properly supported, reasoned and consistent with their previous opinions – remembering that any report that has been filed will potentially become available through the pilot if used in hearing!

The Academy responded to the consultation for the pilot and continues to engage with the judiciary and legal profession on this and other issues to ensure that expert views are taken into account and that members have access to the best possible advice and guidance.

Our Judicial Committee publishes the authoritative guidance for experts so you can be sure that you are adopting best practice. This includes for example the Model Form of Expert’s Report and Guidance Notes on Meetings of Experts, Contingency Fees & Remote Evidence.

We also provide practical advice and guidance on topics such as GDPR, Joint Statements, privilege and so on which is available at no charge to members in the Academy’s Knowledge Hub.

Members can also call our Technical Helpline for help and advice on ethical and practical issues from dealing with instructions to getting paid.

As Tolstoy might have said if writing about litigation rather than Anna Karenina,  “All good experts are alike; each poor expert is unhelpful in their own way”. There have been some notable examples of poor experts over the past year, from those who simply don’t have the right expertise or understanding of their role to those (thankfully very unusual) experts who understand the role perfectly but have chosen to fight their client’s corner rather than help the court.

Judges understandably spend more time explaining why they don’t accept an expert’s evidence than praising experts who, from the court’s perspective, are simply doing the job they are supposed to do. Often the only feedback a good expert gets is a few positive words but our word cloud summarising this year’s comments demonstrates that good experts have some very simple things in common. From a judge’s point of view they are clear, helpful and fair. To give some colour to that perhaps obvious statement, here are a few of the more loquacious judicial comments about experts from 2025;

• This was unquestionably an impressive expert. He had a ready command of the details both of the market at the time and of the issues in this case. He was fair minded and demonstrated the independence that makes experts so valuable to the court, readily recognising criticisms of the Valuation and his own methodology where he considered them to be fair. At times I felt that the Claimant verged on, and indeed strayed into, conducting trial by ambush in the course of the cross examination, presenting him with new material while in the course of giving evidence; he engaged with the new figures presented to him and was able to offer clear, comprehensive answers to the questions put.
• It is clear that each of the 12 expert witnesses had a wealth of qualifications, experience and/or expertise in their respective disciplines and used their understanding and knowledge to assist the Court. The Court is immensely grateful to them.
• Whilst she had less experience to give technical evidence on the main issues in this dispute her oral evidence was thoughtful and helpful.  She was at all times mindful of her overriding duties to the court and gave clear answers to the difficult questions put to her.
• The court greatly benefited from the expertise and thoughtful consideration of two eminent consultant surgeons. It was undoubtedly the right decision to grant permission for their testifying. They were rather different personalities, but each possessed intellect and were articulate, frank and forthright – precisely what the court would expect of high-quality experts. The court is grateful to them both.

Such comments are a reminder that as well as specialist professional skills and qualifications experts need the ability to communicate clearly both in writing and verbally, especially in court. The legal environment is very different from ‘normal’ professional practice so anyone considering acting as an expert needs to understand that environment,  the rules that apply to expert evidence and how to avoid the pitfalls that can lead to a difficult time in court and potentially public criticism from a Judge.

The Academy’s training programme is designed to help already  skilled professionals through the basic foundations to a mock cross-examination to ensure that they are fully prepared. Our training courses are primarily delivered online but we run some face to face courses  in London and Hong Kong. We can also run in-house training for larger consultancies, please contact us for details.

Members receive a 25% discount on training, if you would like to join the Academy please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we will help you identify the appropriate membership level for you. Other benefits of membership include guidance and advice on being an expert, regular member meetings to discuss issues affecting experts and access to specialised PI insurance.

Many experts are members of the professional bodies or associations relevant to their specialist field and will benefit from news, information, networking events and so on, as well as the ability to put the relevant letters after their name. Of course these are all helpful aspects of professional membership but from the point of view of the public and the courts a more important, possibly the most important, service a professional body provides  is to ensure that members provide professional and high quality services.

 

The key role of a professional body’s enforcement process in the justice system is illustrated by Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi. This case had, as the judge commented a fairly remarkable history  but in very brief summary the Defendant lost at a liability hearing and was ordered to purchase shares in a company at a price “to be determined”. There followed a series of applications, appeals and failures by the Defendant to pay costs or provide security for costs, all of which culminated in them being barred from taking any further part in the proceedings.

 

The quantum hearing duly took place with the judge relying heavily on a quantum report provided by a member of the ICAEW, resulting in a  valuation for the shares of £3.3 million. So not a good result for the (de-barred) Defendant. What follows is best explained by quoting the judge;

 

“On 10 December 2024 Mr Lorimer-Wing applied for permission to appeal the debarment order. This is the appeal. The application for permission to appeal was rejected on the papers by Leech J on 27 March 2025. Mr Lorimer-Wing applied to renew his application, and that came before Leech J on 20 June 2025. Just before that application was heard, the court received letters from Mr Ashing, the expert, and from a Mr Wiggins, a representative of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (“ICAEW”). The effect of those letters was that Mr Ashing accepted that his expert’s report which ICC Judge Agnello had relied on was flawed, and in particular he accepted that the correct value of the company at the material time was likely to be substantially less than set out in his opinion. Mr Wiggins explained that the ICAEW was involved because of a complaint made to it by Mr Lorimer-Wing against Mr Ashing. The investigation which was conducted by the ICAEW included instructing their own independent valuation, and that valuation expert was firmly of the view that the company had no value at the relevant valuation date. “

 

In other words  there was no basis for the award that had been made and the order for costs itself might also be unsafe. While couched in careful language the judge was clearly unhappy with the procedural mess that resulted, commenting that “These proceedings need to be brought to a conclusion by getting to the bottom of what happened in the Agnello proceedings, and I do not consider putting any more procedural impediments to a proper resolution on the merits of those issues is desirable. “ Accordingly, the Defendant was no longer de-barred would be allowed to bring in new evidence and amend their grounds of appeal.

 

While the next chapter in this particular saga may yet play out in court the key message is that professional bodies do matter and their complaints processes have teeth. If a party believes an expert has not acted appropriately for whatever reason there are avenues that can and should be used to challenge them.

 

Members of the Academy of Experts will be aware that while bodies such as ICAEW are often the first port of call for complaints, we also have a complaints process. The Academy’s code of conduct for experts  was approved by the Master of the Rolls and the disciplinary procedure is conducted, on the few occasions its required, by an independent committee led by a legal practitioner and comprising experienced experts and at least one dispute resolver. While most experts will never need to engage in the process it is an essential service to both the public and the courts. If you need advice on engaging an expert or identifying the appropriate body to contact for advice then please get in touch.

Experts  often have to rely on their clients and instructing solicitors to provide them with the material they need to form opinion. That evidence may be documents, data from an IT system or audio or video recordings and if the evidence you are given is incomplete or distorted in some way your opinions may turn out to be wrong.

 

The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police has recently been found in contempt of court in a case that acts a timely warning to experts of the need to check and check again that you really have all the evidence you need.

 

A brief summary of the case is that a woman was arrested and charged by police officers but the case against her was then dropped. She was unhappy with the way she had been treated during the arrest and claimed that property had been taken. Cue a series of court cases escalating through the courts and requests under GDPR for access to the video recordings from the police officers’ body worn cameras. Complaints to the ICO were upheld and some footage provided but not all of it and Northants police claimed on multiple occasions that  they had ‘performed standard searches’, had provided all the available material and that any remaining footage had been deleted without any clear explanation of why.

 

A few days before a final hearing at the Court of Appeal it transpired that when the audit logs for the relevant officers were checked and other, entirely obvious but presumably not ‘standard for Northants police’ searches were carried out the missing video footage did in fact exist, had not been deleted and could be provided without any difficulty.

 

The lesson for experts is that when a client says they’ve looked for and not found the evidence you expect to see you should treat them like a teenager who claims not to be able to find a missing pair of trainers. Get them to tell you exactly and in annoying detail where they’ve looked, what searches they’ve performed and if humanly possible make them show you what they’ve done. If there’s  really nothing there then there’s no problem, but if you emerge from under your client’s metaphorical bed with a pair of smelly trainers it really is better to know sooner rather than later!

 

As well as specialist professional skills and qualifications experts need the ability to communicate clearly both in writing and verbally, especially in court. While many consultants and professionals have those skills the legal environment is very different from ‘normal’ professional practice. Anyone considering acting as an expert needs to understand that environment,  the rules that apply to expert evidence and how to avoid the pitfalls that can lead to a difficult time in court and potentially public criticism from a Judge.

The Academy’s training programme is designed to help already  skilled professionals through the basic foundations to a mock cross-examination to ensure that they are fully prepared. Our training courses are primarily delivered online but we run some face to face courses  in London and Hong Kong. We can also run in-house training for larger consultancies, please contact us for details.

Members receive a 25% discount on training, if you would like to join the Academy please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we will help you identify the appropriate membership level for you. Other benefits of membership include guidance and advice on being an expert, regular member meetings to discuss issues affecting experts and access to specialised PI insurance.

The High Court ruling against Danish tax authority SKAT in a £1.4 billion dividend tax fraud case has been widely reported, not least because the judge concluded that SKAT’s controls on the transactions involved were so flimsy as to represent the equivalent of a ‘help yourself’ sign outside a bank.

 

Less attention has been given to the judge’s criticisms of the experts who appeared on behalf of the many parties involved. As he put it “ All three experts, in differing ways, did not provide properly balanced written reports”.

 

Perhaps the clearest example was SKAT’s expert “whose written work was argument rather than expert evidence” showing the dangers of working closely with a client and legal team on complex, long-running litigation. The judge concluded that “he finds it difficult not to think and express himself as an advocate for SKAT’s position. He has, I think, lost detachment from the partisan interests of SKAT” and was unable perhaps to hear any ‘evil’ in his client’s case.

 

Somewhat less concerning was an expert whose testimony was careful but tended to obscure his views and maximise differences with other experts that were not a pronounced as appeared at first glance.  As the judge observed, “That exposed him to a cross-examination that should have been largely unnecessary to confirm the extent to which, in substance, he agrees with a range of matters on which SKAT relied. “ Fortunately he appears to have dealt with that cross-examination impressively, fairly (with balance), and with an obvious depth of thought and expertise. A better approach might have been to write a report that allowed the parties to see more clearly.

 

And finally, the third expert’s generally much better approach (once his reports had been edited to remove contentious factual matters that should not have been there!) and thoughtful and fair answers to questions were undermined by his taking a view in the witness box that he had not expressed in writing.  The judge concluded that his interpretation of a key terminology expressed in oral evidence “had not been his view at any material time. It was inconsistent with the views he had expressed in writing, including in his primary expert report in these proceedings, to which he had to proffer alterations when called to give his oral evidence to advance the different view. “  While the case did not turn on this point the judge made it clear that speaking out in this way, because his written views in fact assisted the other side, was not acceptable and did the expert no credit.

 

The message to experts should not be a surprise, no client’s case is perfect and there are times when your views will not support their case. When that happens it is critical that you make sure your client’s hear you, that the court can see hat your views really area and that when you speak you keep your duty of independence firmly in mind.

Anyone considering acting as an expert needs to understand that environment,  the rules that apply to expert evidence and how to avoid the pitfalls that can lead to a difficult time in court and potentially public criticism from a Judge.

The Academy’s training programme is designed to help already  skilled professionals through the basic foundations to a mock cross-examination to ensure that they are fully prepared. Our training courses are primarily delivered online but we run some face to face courses  in London and Hong Kong. We can also run in-house training for larger consultancies, please contact us for details.

The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee have issued a new consolidated set of the Criminal Procedure Rules which came into force on 6^th October 2025.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 replaces the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 and incorporates the 9 sets of amendments made since the 2020 rules were published. The Committee has also published a guide to the new Rules. criminal-procedure-rules-2025.pdf

In addition, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee have just published the. Fourth Amendment to the Criminal Practice Directions 2023 – November 2025 – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. The changes, some of which will impact on experts in Chapter 7, come into force on 18^th November 2025.

The amendments:

1. require the disclosure in an expert report of any authoritative advice or warning relevant to the content of the report;
2. require the disclosure in an expert report of any past adverse finding or disciplinary proceeding, even if since resolved; and
3. ensure the compatibility of the declarations of compliance required by (i) the Criminal Practice Directions, and (ii) the Forensic Science Regulator’s statutory code of practice.

Updated Expert Declaration
In addition to the changes outlined above there are also changes that need to be made to the Expert’s Declaration, full details are on the Academy website.

 

Don’t forget to update any templates you have that are effected by the changes and to satisfy yourself that any report issued after 18^th November 2025 complies with the new requirements.

The Academy’s GDPR guidance turned 5 this year so we thought it was a good time to review it in the light of a better understanding of how GDPR has been implemented in practice. One of the challenges of developing guidance for our expert members is they cover a wide range of specialisms and as a result deal with widely differing types of personal information. The material needed by a medical or psychiatric expert to assess a personal injury is clearly very different from that used by an accountant to assess the value of a business.

In addition while some experts work within large consulting firms many are micro-businesses who don’t have the benefit of in-house egal advice but still have to negotiate the (sometimes onerous)  privacy responsibilities passed down to them by instructing solicitors.

 

Our guidance is designed to help members consider for themselves what aspects of their work are covered by GDPR in a structured way and is linked to a model privacy policy that can be used in a ‘pick and mix’ way to include only those sections that are relevant.  We recommend micro-business or individual expert read the ICO’s small business guide alongside our guidance and remind you that you are almost certainly required to register and pay the required annual fee.

 

The Academy  provides a range of practical advice and guidance on other topics such as conficts, Joint Statements, privilege and so on which is available at no charge to members in the Academy’s Knowledge Hub.

Members can also call our Technical Helpline for help and advice on ethical and practical issues from dealing with instructions to getting paid.

If you would like to join the Academy please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we’ll help you identify the appropriate membership level for you. Other benefits of membership regular member meetings to discuss issues affecting experts and access to specialised PI insurance.