High Court judge renders expert’s report “unreliable” because it had been produced without sight of all the relevant evidence - a cautionary tale for both instructing solicitors and expert witnesses.
1. Introduction
In Rebecca Hepworth v Dr Amanda Coates [2025] EWHC 1907 (KB), the claimant brought an action in clinical negligence against her GP (the defendant).
She alleged that the defendant failed to diagnose red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome at a face-to-face consultation on 5 November 2018.
The case failed on the issue of liability, with the claimant’s expert evidence being a particular cause of concern.
2. What were the main issues with the expert’s report?
The main issue with the expert’s report was that he had prepared it without having consulted several pieces of evidence in the case, which were key to the issues he addressed in his report. This included not only the reports of other experts in the case but also the claimant’s witness statement.
The claimant’s expert also attended a meeting with the defendant’s expert without having seen all the evidence in the case.
3. How did this issue affect the claimant expert’s overall evidence?
This issue led to serious discrepancies between the expert’s evidence on the claimant’s health and the claimant’s own evidence in both of her witness statements.
Judge Charman concluded that the claimant’s expert “did not take, or did not record, an accurate history of [the claimant’s] condition”. As his findings were based on inaccurate history of the claimant’s condition, his report was “likely to be unreliable”.
4. What was the issue with the expert’s oral evidence?
In addition to the issues with his report, the judgment also highlighted issues with the expert’s oral evidence.
During his cross examination, [the expert] referred to having seen in the medical notes which he had looked at recently, a note of [the claimant] falling down the stairs and attending hospital where a head scan was carried out. A break was taken to give the expert time to find the relevant note. After the break, he referred to a note of another fall which was very clearly not the one he referred to as it did not have the features he had previously described. He was given a further opportunity to find the note overnight. Next morning, he identified a note which referred to an MRI head scan. However, the scan related to reported sinus issues and not a fall.
Whilst Judge Charman was satisfied that the expert did not deliberately set out to mislead the court, his conduct did “cast serious doubt on the reliability of his oral evidence generally”. Instead of acknowledging or admitting he had made a mistake, “in order to try to save face, [he] sought to justify it” by repeatedly trying to find evidence.
5. What can instructing solicitors and expert witnesses learn from this case?
There is an onus on experts to ensure they have the complete picture before finalising their report. As Judge Charman stated, “it was not [the expert’s] fault if he was not provided with the witness statements and other reports, but that he did not ask to see them before finalising his report is, in my judgment, a serious omission.”
However, as this case highlights, the main responsibility lies with instructing solicitors to ensure that their expert access to all relevant information before producing their report, and that the final report is based on that information.
Instructing solicitors should pay particular attention to this given the consequences of an “unreliable” report – that it has the potential to materially impact the outcome of a client’s case.