Expert Witness Institute

03/06/2026

4 behaviours that build unassailable expert credibility in court. 🛡️

When giving oral evidence, under the pressure of cross-examination, it can be easy to fall into defensive habits.

But as HHJ Robinson’s recent judgment in Dakin v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust shows, the courts are deeply impressed by measured, calm, and objective testimony.

Here is a quick "best practice" blueprint for your next hearing, drawn directly from the judge's praise of the experts in this case:

1️⃣ Don't Over-Embellish: Give clear, context-rich answers, but resist the urge to add unnecessary layers to "help" your instructing party's case.
2️⃣ Draw Clear Boundaries: Be entirely transparent about the limits of your recollection. Clearly distinguish between what is a documented fact and what is your professional interpretation of that fact.
3️⃣ Reflect, Don't React: Take a moment to genuinely consider the cross-examiner's questions. A witness who "reflects upon their answers" demonstrates active impartiality.
4️⃣ Neutrality is Your Shield: When counsel accuses you of advocacy, a balanced, measured tone is your best defense. If your evidence remains strictly aligned with the court documents, the judge will see through standard litigation tactics.

Objectivity is the ultimate currency of the court.

👇 How do you prepare yourself to maintain composure under pressure? Let us know in the comments, and read the full case review here: https://www.ewi.org.uk/News/Case-Updates/praise-for-experts-gives-insight-into-what-makes-oral-evidence-credible

02/06/2026

Regulatory Tribunals: 4 expert "red flags" to avoid. 🚩

Providing expert evidence in professional disciplinary hearings requires strict adherence to legal frameworks.

In the recent disciplinary case of GDC v Dr. Michael Mew, the Committee preferred the regulator's experts, pointing to several critical compliance failures by the defence's expert witnesses.

Here is what went wrong, and how to avoid these pitfalls in your own practice:

1️⃣ The Character Referee Conflict: Do not act as an independent expert if you have already submitted character evidence for the registrant. If you do, it must be prominently disclosed in your report.
2️⃣ Missing Declarations: Always include the standard expert declaration. Failing to do so signals a lack of familiarity with professional regulatory rules.
3️⃣ Unfounded Assertions: Be extremely careful when making factual claims during oral evidence. One prosecution expert had to apologise and withdraw assertions regarding a publication, a move that, while handled professionally, can damage credibility.
4️⃣ Jurisdictional Unfamiliarity: Understanding The Ikarian Re**er principles is not just for civil courts. It applies equally to UK regulatory systems.

Maintaining an unassailable boundary of independence is your best defence against having your evidence discounted.

Read the full legal breakdown: https://www.ewi.org.uk/News/ArticleID/1072/ArtMID/1215/preview/true

02/06/2026

The EWI website is undergoing some maintenance today (2/06/26). There may be some periods of downtime but these will be kept to a minimum. Thank you for you patience and if you do need any assistance please contact the team [email protected]

01/06/2026

Have you secured your place for the 2026 AGM? 🗳️

A quick reminder that the Expert Witness Institute Annual General Meeting is taking place this week on Thursday, 4th June, from 5:00 pm to 5:45 pm BST.

The AGM is a vital opportunity for our member community to hear directly from the Board on the Institute's progress over the last year, discuss our strategic plans for the future, and exercise your voting rights.

The meeting will be hosted online via Zoom, making it easy to join us from wherever you are practicing.

Event Details:
📅 Date: Thursday, 4th June 2026
⏰ Time: 5:00 pm – 5:45 pm BST
📍 Format: Online via Zoom (Members Only)

Don't miss the chance to have your say and connect with the EWI leadership team.

👇 EWI Members can register to attend and secure their Zoom link here:
https://www.ewi.org.uk/Training-and-Events/Event-Details/eventDateId/276

29/05/2026

A model example of how experts can rise above the fray. 🎸⚖️

In high stakes, hard fought litigation, like the recent dispute over 40 studio recordings by the Jimi Hendrix Experience, tempers can run incredibly high. Yet, the expert witnesses in this case became the highlight of the judgment.

Despite aggressive attempts by opposing counsel to discredit the claimant's expert (Mr. C), accusing him of acting as an advocate and "making speeches," the High Court judge rejected the criticisms entirely.

Instead, the judge took the opportunity to commend both New York law experts (Mr. C and Professor K) for their exemplary conduct.

What made them stand out to the Court?
🔹 Thorough Research: Their detailed reports read exceptionally well and were clearly the product of intense preparation.
🔹 Clear Communication: In oral evidence, they used helpful, practical analogies (like a "spectrum") to explain complex legal principles simply.
🔹 Court-First Mindset: Both remained utterly focused on their primary duty: helping the judge solve the problem, rather than winning the argument.

The case is a beautiful reminder that in the heat of litigation, an expert's best defence against professional attacks is simply the undeniable quality of their work.

👇 Read our full breakdown of the case and the lessons on handling aggressive courtroom criticism:
https://www.ewi.org.uk/News/ArticleID/1075/ArtMID/1215/preview/true

22/05/2026

Family Procedure Rule Committee minutes provide update on latest thinking about unregulated Experts in Family Court Children Proceedings https://www.ewi.org.uk/News/Unregulated-Experts-in-Family-Court-Children-Proceedings

20/05/2026

🎙️ New Podcast Alert & 1-Month Conference Countdown! 🗓️

With just over a month to go until the EWI Online Annual Conference 2026 (19 June), the countdown is officially on!

To help you prepare, the latest episode of the Expert Matters Podcast (Episode 25) is live, giving you an exclusive preview of what to expect at our flagship virtual event.

Here is what we’re diving into this month:

👥 Reducing Claimant Re-Traumatisation: We look back at key themes from our 2025 conferences, including an incredibly important conversation with Holly King on 'How to reduce the re-traumatisation of claimants in medico-legal litigation claims.' This is essential listening for any expert working in personal injury or clinical negligence.

✨ NEW SEGMENT - "A Case That Changed Me": We are thrilled to launch this new recurring feature! Listen as fellow experts share the stories of the pivotal cases that challenged their perspectives and fundamentally shaped their professional practice.

🔍 2026 Conference Preview: Get a sneak peek at the schedule, key themes, and high-profile speakers lined up for 19 June, including Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, Mr Justice Fancourt, and Dr Kay Linnell OBE.

As always, you’ll also get our regular 'What’s going on at EWI' and 'Newsreel' segments to keep you completely up-to-date with the latest shifts in the expert witness landscape.

🎧 Listen Now:
Available on all major podcast platforms, including Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

👉 https://www.ewi.org.uk/podcast/podcast-episode-25-preview-of-the-ewi-annual-conference-2026
🎟️ Have you secured your conference place yet? Book your virtual ticket today to ensure you don't miss out on vital legal updates and networking: https://www.ewi.org.uk/Training-and-Events/Event-Details/eventDateId/290

18/05/2026

The Mouthpiece Trap: Why critical analysis and sector experience win in court ⚖️

When does an expert witness cross the line from providing independent analysis to simply acting as a rubber stamp for their client's narrative?

The recent High Court judgment in David Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) provides a stark, textbook example of why the bench expects analytical rigour over subjective advocacy.

In these test cases regarding military noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), the court was faced with conflicting employment expert evidence regarding loss of future earnings. The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert "without hesitation."

What made the difference?

👥 The Defendant’s Expert (Mr H):

Sector-Specific Knowledge: A former naval officer with deep consulting experience, giving him a thorough understanding of the claimant's military career.

Judicial Feedback: Described as balanced, authoritative, and a very impressive witness who, throughout, demonstrated genuine expertise and true independence of thought.

👥 The Claimant’s Expert (Mr M):

Lack of Relevant Experience: Had no background in the military, defence, cyber security, or management consulting sectors.

Lack of Analytical Rigour: Based his report substantially on the claimant’s own subjective accounts. In the joint statement, he simply recited the claimant's position word-for-word with "little attempt to test or challenge" it.

💡 Key Takeaways for the Expert Community

For Expert Witnesses: Your duty is to the Court, not your instructing party. Never simply adopt your client's narrative as fact. It is your job to critically analyse, test, and challenge all evidence, even when it comes from the party instructing you. Failing to do so destroys your credibility.

For Instructing Parties: Sector-specific experience matters. When choosing an expert, look for deep, practical, and up-to-date knowledge in the specific field or industry of the dispute. A highly generalized expert will struggle under the scrutiny of a specialized counterpart.

Read our full analysis of Abbott v MoD and how to maintain analytical independence in your reports:

👉 https://www.ewi.org.uk/News/ArtMID/1215/ArticleID/1065/preview/true/David-Abbott-Ors-v-Ministry-of-Defence-2026-EWHC-941-KB

Summary The judgment dealt with two test cases and a number of generic issues arising from a series of claims brought by former members of the military for damages for noise induced hearing loss (‘NIHL’). The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s employment expert who had more releva...

14/05/2026

"These are people’s homes. That has to be the priority." 🏠

In our latest "Day in the Life" feature, we speak with David Deacon, Chartered Surveyor and founder of Housing Disrepair Surveys.

David’s journey took him from global firms like CBRE and JLL to the front lines of housing disrepair claims. For David and his nationwide team, the work is about more than just surveying buildings—it’s about transparency, honesty, and the impact on people's lives.

Key Highlights:
🔹 The Reality of Disrepair: "We've had tenants in tears when surveyors arrive because they feel like someone is finally helping them."
🔹 Impartiality is Practical: David explains why an honest, objective report is the only way to protect your reputation and serve the court.
🔹 Efficiency in Action: Why his team adopted a ‘single for joint’ approach to prevent delays in the legal process.

"What keeps me going is the sense that this work actually matters. Every case is different, and some of the situations people are living in are genuinely striking."

👇 Read the full interview with David Deacon here: https://www.ewi.org.uk/Membership/Day-in-the-life-of-an-Expert-Witness/A-Day-in-the-Life-of-a-Housing-Disrepair-Expert-Witness

Our Day in the life of an Expert Witness series provides insights into the work undertaken by our members across a range of different professional backgrounds.

13/05/2026

When does a GP letter become Expert Evidence? ⚖️

A recent judgment involving a tragic dispute over the disposal of an 18-year-old’s ashes provides a vital reminder for all medical practitioners.

The court clarified a common misconception: medical evidence regarding a patient’s fitness to participate in legal proceedings is expert evidence. Even if termed ‘professional’ evidence, it is subject to the same strict requirements of independence and objectivity.

The Case:
In this instance, a GP provided letters to support a mother’s adjournment request, citing PTSD and high blood pressure. However, the court found the evidence deficient and lacking the requisite independence.

Key Takeaways:
🔹 Independence is non-negotiable: The letters read as if they were written by the patient herself, rather than an objective clinician.
🔹 Fact vs. Allegation: The GP accepted the patient's allegations of domestic abuse as proven fact, rather than documenting them as reported history.
🔹 Prognosis matters: A "bald statement" that a party cannot engage until a certain date without explaining why or what will change by then is likely to be rejected.
🔹 No Secret Evidence: You cannot mark evidence confidential to the judge. The opposing party has a right to see and address any evidence used against them.

For experts, the lesson is clear: Your duty is to assist the court, not to advocate for your patient or client.
https://www.ewi.org.uk/News/ArtMID/1215/ArticleID/1064/preview/true/Evidence-as-to-fitness-to-participate-in-legal-proceedings-is-expert-evidence