AVOIDING THE PITFALLS WITH EXPERT EVIDENCE: WEBINAR 20th MARCH 2026: THE EXPERTS REPORT WAS “ALMOST WORSE THAN USELESS…”

We have seen some graphic examples in the past few weeks of a court robustly rejecting expert evidence adduced on behalf of a claimant. This webinar examines why expert evidence is not accepted, limited, or even wholly rejected at trial.

“[The expert’s]  report was I regret to say, almost worse than useless. To the extent, at times, of being positively disingenuous. She was put in a position where she had to concede her duties under Part 35 of the CPR, but it was abundantly clear that she had not considered those properly in the past. One might have got away with that, quite frankly, had worse not followed.”

(HHJ Gallagher in Clark -v- Skyfire Insurance Company Limited,  Canterbury County Court, 12th November 2025)

THE WEBINAR

Through a practical and case-focused lens, the session explores the legal framework governing expert evidence, the definition of who qualifies as an “expert,” and the procedural requirements for obtaining the court’s permission to rely on such evidence. It also considers admissibility principles, the lawyer’s responsibilities when instructing and working with experts, and the warning signs of “experts behaving badly.”

Designed for litigators and legal professionals, this webinar provides practical guidance to help you avoid common pitfalls, strengthen expert evidence strategy, and respond effectively when expert evidence is challenged.

BOOKING DETAILS

Are available here.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to:

• Understand the legal framework governing expert evidence and the key procedural rules that apply.
• Identify who qualifies as an expert, including the limits of expertise and challenges to expert status.
• Explain the process for obtaining the court’s permission to rely on expert evidence and the consequences of non-compliance.
• Assess the admissibility of expert evidence, including relevance, reliability, independence, and proportionality.
• Recognise the lawyer’s role in instructing, communicating with, and managing experts while maintaining professional and ethical boundaries.
• Identify warning signs of problematic expert conduct (“experts behaving badly”) and take appropriate remedial action.
• Develop strategies to reduce the risk of expert evidence being limited, criticised, or rejected at trial.

RELATED POSTS

The most recent editions of the “Expert Watch” series illustrate many of the problems involved for litigants, lawyers and experts.

1. EXPERT WATCH 39: Both experts “acted as surrogate advocates on behalf of their instructing party”: more lessons to be learnt…
Feb 27, 2026 — A High Court decision sharply criticises both expert witnesses for acting more like advocates for their instructing parties than independent evaluators of the evidence. The judge highlights the dangers when experts adopt partisan approaches rather than providing unbiased opinion evidence.

2. EXPERT WATCH 38: An expert had not breached their duty by accepting limited instructions: but when should an expert refuse instructions?
Feb 25, 2026 — This post discusses a case focusing on an expert’s duty where the expert was given limited instructions. The court found no breach of duty despite the constraints, but emphasised the circumstances in which an expert should consider refusing instructions to preserve independence.

3. EXPERT WATCH 37: The court should make findings of fact first and not abdicate its role to an expert: a first instance decision with a “fundamental flaw”.
Feb 23, 2026 — A family law decision clarifies that courts must make core findings of fact themselves and cannot simply defer essential case facts to expert evidence. It reinforces the principle that expert reports should assist, not replace, judicial fact-finding.

4. EXPERT WATCH 36: The judge finds that expert evidence is “literally unbelievable” (and it gets worse…) “I mean, it is dishonest, full stop”.
Feb 18, 2026 — A striking example of judicial scepticism: the court rejected expert evidence outright, branding it unbelievable and dishonest. Both experts called by a claimant were heavily criticised, illustrating the serious consequences when expert opinion lacks credibility.

EXPERT WATCH 35: Claimant Refused Permission to Adduce a Supplementary Report After the Trial Had Ended

Published: 13 February 2026 — In this case, after the trial had concluded, the claimant sought to introduce a supplementary expert report setting out new expert material. The court refused permission, applying the key principle that expert evidence must normally be finalised and served before trial. The post reflects on the fact that litigation professionals sometimes think of additional points after the event — but the rules on expert evidence (including timing and permission) are strict, and late-served reports risk exclusion.

5. EXPERT WATCH 34: The court refuses to replace a jointly instructed expert but allows some of the parties to instruct their own expert
Feb 12, 2026 — In a case where concerns were raised about a jointly instructed expert, the judge refused to replace the jointly instructed expert. However, recognising the centrality of expert evidence to the dispute, some parties were permitted to obtain their own experts to provide alternative opinion evidence.

EXPERT WATCH 33: When an expert relies on the findings of a previous expert — this can lead to difficulties…

Published: 2 February 2026 — This Expert Watch post discusses a civil case where problems arose because one expert’s report relied, in part, on the findings of a previously instructed expert. The commentary (involves expert opinion evidence) highlights issues that can emerge when an expert depends on another expert’s conclusions rather than presenting independent analysis — raising questions about how the judge should assess and prefer competing expert evidence.

6. EXPERT WATCH 32: A review of the case law as to the independence (or otherwise) of expert witnesses
Jan 29, 2026 — A thematic review focusing on expert independence, emphasising that experts should have no apparent interest in the outcome and must be disinterested advisers; conflicts of interest can lead to exclusion of evidence.

7. EXPERT WATCH 31: A party was not allowed to rely on the expert evidence of someone who was conflicted: the expert cannot “mark their own homework”.
Jan 28, 2026 — A decision where a judge refused permission for conflicted expert evidence — the expert had prior involvement that undermined their independence — reinforcing the core duty of impartiality owed by expert witnesses.