A recent High Court case confirms that the report of a jointly instructed expert is not necessarily conclusive. The trial judge will take the report into account, but it is the judge’s findings of fact that are determinative, and this may not always align with the evidence of the jointly instructed expert.
It is tempting to assume that the evidence of a jointly instructed expert witness will be accepted by the courts. Afterall, both sides of the dispute will have agreed that the chosen expert has the requisite credentials to provide a reliable opinion.
However, as with all evidence in litigation, there are times when the court will be privy to facts beyond the expert’s remit or see the facts of the case in a context that the expert did not perceive. In that case, it may be that the judge draws an alternative conclusion to the jointly instructed expert witness, dismissing their evidence altogether.
UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 543 was one such case. After a hearing in January, IIC Judge Agenello KC’s 11 March judgment dismissed the evidence of a jointly instructed expert on the basis that she had not been given access to all the relevant facts before drawing her conclusion.
Lacked all the facts
The claim related to ownership of shares in Oneta Ltd and whether the settlement agreement the case hinged on was genuine. The agreement, which was drawn up on scrap paper, ostensibly included the signatures of all parties but the claimant contended that it was not valid and that it had not been signed legitimately.
The expert witness in the case concluded that, while she agreed that the disputed signature of claimant Mr Jakstys had been handwritten by him, she could not verify the document as genuine and believed there was a high chance that it had been created around the signature.
Her report stated: “In my experience, the anomalies observed with respect to the Settlement Agreement are typical of a document manipulation process having been undertaken.”
In assessing the case, the judge made it clear that the expert witness had not been in possession of all the facts. The judge said the expert had evaluated the authenticity of the agreement “in a complete vacuum of the facts and evidence as to how the document was created and signed”. This was important because it was those very facts that were in dispute.
The judge said: “Additionally, she had been provided with no information relating to what happened to the document since it had been created, for example whether it had been folded, where it was stored and also whether it had been stapled previously.”
The history of the document in fact explained the apparent anomalies that had led the expert to her opinion.
The judge explained: “It is clear that the third page had been separated from the other two pages. There was no evidence provided to [the expert] as to when the third page had been separated. In fact, there is evidence that it had been stapled to another letter earlier on.”
Disregarded the joint expert’s evidence
Moreover, the judge accepted that the document had been produced on scrap paper and that the parties were aware that had been the case.
The judge said: “There is no evidence relating to the condition of the scrap paper itself prior to it being used … to print the document.”
This means the anomalies were likely already present and not material evidence of any tampering during the drawing up of the contested agreement. As such, the judge found in favour of the defendants that the document was “authentic and binding”. This was contrary to the conclusion of the jointly instructed expert.
Summary
This case highlights that the evidence of a jointly instructed expert will be scrutinised in the same manner as all evidence and never blindly trusted in court. The report will be considered alongside the full facts of the case. Where a judge feels there are gaps in the evidentiary basis for an expert’s conclusions, they will point them out and may draw the opposite conclusion.
How we can help
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.