Log in to your account
Search the Academy Website
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2026] EWHC 1793 (Ch)
In Trinsic Collagen Ltd v Procoll Ltd [2026] EWHC 1793 (Ch), the court criticised the way additional information had been provided to the claimant’s experts and then relied on without being clearly identified in the reports, or in one instance…
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2026] EWHC 1182 (Ch)
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 (…
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 2757 (Ch)
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…
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 2794 (Ch)
Most judicial criticism of experts arises from either ignorance of the basic rules of expert evidence or because experts who understand and have tried to apply the rules have slipped off the straight and narrow path, usually from a desire…
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch)
There has been some publicity about a recent case, JSC Privatbank v Kolomoisky , in which past judicial criticism of an expert were raised, suggesting among other things that experts have a duty to disclose such criticism. Less attention has…
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2023] EWHC 873 (Ch)
Academy commentary on Lidl v Tesco, discussed in “Evidence goes public. Why experts should take care to be consistent in their opinions.”.
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 206 (Ch)
Academy commentary on Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare, discussed in “Evidence goes public. Why experts should take care to be consistent in their opinions.”.
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 752 (Ch)
Academy commentary on Nicholas & Ors v Thomas & Anor, discussed in “Ducks (or Falcons) in a row – the importance of lawyers raising expert evidence at the right time”.
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 1159 (Ch)
Academy commentary on Huang and Wang v Credit Suisse, discussed in “Ducks (or Falcons) in a row – the importance of lawyers raising expert evidence at the right time”.
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 1031 (Ch)
Academy commentary on Skykomish Ltd v Gerald Eve LLP, discussed in “Hired gun? How to avoid being seen as an advocate for your client.”.
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 1236 (Ch)
Having extolled the virtues of experts a few weeks ago we have to return to a more critical tone this week. Inspired Education Online Ltd v Crombie was a dispute about the sale of a company that hit the headlines…
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 526 (Ch)
Academy commentary on Malcolm Cohen & Ors v Co-operative Group Limited & Ors, discussed in “Expert or not expert? Spot the difference?”.
