A recent High Court appeal provides a cautionary reminder for expert witnesses that even if their report is not challenged by the court, it can still be subject to external review.
1. The facts of the case
Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2025] EWHC 2757 concerns an application for security for costs by the respondent to the appeal. The security for costs application was made in the context of the appellant’s appeal against an order of ICC Judge Barber dated 14 November 2024.
This application follows a 2021 petition by the respondent alleging unfair prejudice in relation to the conduct of the affairs of a company. After trial, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs at a sum to be fixed. Directions were given for the quantum stage by the judge, including permission to the respondent to adduce valuation evidence from a forensic accountant. As the appellant refused to pay intermediate costs, he was debarred from the quantum hearing and was unable to challenge the respondent expert’s report.
At the quantum hearing, the judge made an order fixing consideration of the shares in the company at £3.3 million plus interest of £600,000.
2. Professional body steps in
However, in December 2024 the appellant applied for permission to appeal his debarment order, and issued a complaint to the expert’s professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW) over flaws in the respondent expert’s report.
Just before that final application was heard but following the quantum hearing, the court received letters from the respondent’s expert and from a representative of the ICAEW. In the letters, the expert had accepted that the report he drafted, and that had been relied upon to value the company, was flawed. Most concerningly, he admitted that the correct value of the company at the time would have been nearer to nil.
The ICAEW representative explained that the professional body had investigated the matter. This involved instructing an accountant to make an independent valuation, which determined the company had no value at the material time.
3. The outcome of the case
The respondent’s application for security of costs was dismissed by the court, and the appellant was allowed to adduce further evidence and amend his grounds of appeal.
The judge noted that the new evidence could fundamentally undermine the previous valuation judgment. He said the “proceedings need to be brought to a conclusion by getting to the bottom of what happened” in the quantum trial.
4. What can experts learn from this case?
This case presents a stark reminder to experts of the repercussions of failing to provide a reliable report, and that even if their evidence is not challenged in court, it has the potential to be scrutinised at a later stage.
Whilst this is a rare case, experts should note that there is always the potential for flawed evidence to be brought to light. As such it is critical that experts only supply evidence to a court that they believe to be watertight.
Bond Solon provides training covering all the core skills and knowledge expert witnesses require to fulfil their role compliantly and effectively. We also offer university certified training programmes that are widely regarded as the industry gold standard by instructing parties.
Please visit our website for further details.