A recent High Court judgment highlighted expert evidence that fell so far below the requisite standard that it was not possible to apply any weight to it in court.
In Siddiqui, R (On the Application Of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2026] EWHC 1878, the judge tempered his £25,000 costs order by allowing the claimant the option of applying to “make staged payments” on delivery of evidentiary “full and frank disclosure of his assets and income”.
The claimant failed to produce evidence on his financial position and instead applied to have his costs order stayed pending appeal, submitting with his application a letter from a psychiatrist.
What did the psychiatrist’s letter contain?
The letter introduced the professional as a consultant psychiatrist in several London hospitals and a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
In the letter, he stated that he had been treating the claimant since May 2012 and described him as suffering from “serious and long-term disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 including Major Depression, Chronic Insomnia, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypercholesterolaemia for which he takes daily antidepressant, hypnotic, diabetic and statin medication”.
The psychiatrist argued that enforcement of the costs order would be to the detriment of the claimant’s mental and physical health. It also made the argument that any consequent adverse effects on the claimant’s health may reduce his capacity to pursue his appeal.
Why did the judge find the letter unreliable?
Even a lay reading of the letter reveals some obviously unsubstantiated claims, but the judge, Justice McKendrick, made it clear in his own words: “I do not find [the psychiatrist’s] information reliable.”
Despite his experience being limited to that of a psychiatrist, his letter warned that the imposition of the costs order put the claimant at risk not only of “a significant psychiatric regression” but at “an imminent and dangerous risk of a major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event”.
In response, the judge pointed out that psychiatrist did not “explain how, as a psychiatrist, he is qualified to comment upon the Claimant’s cardiovascular health”. In addition, the judge said: “He offers no information regarding any form of cardiological or other physiological testing.”
The expert sought to emphasise his point further by writing: “I must specifically advise that in this patient’s case, third-party handling will not neutralise the medical danger.”
He continued: “The mere knowledge that financial enforcement or asset transfers are actively taking place, regardless of who executes the transaction – is the primary psychological trigger. It creates the same severe and dangerous risk of an acute clinical crisis and cardiovascular emergency.”
It is hard not to find some humour in his limited substantiation of his claims that the claimant would be somehow uniquely stressed by the imposition of a £25,000 costs order.
The judge may also have felt there was some irony here, as he highlighted the apparent absurdity of the claims by saying: “It does seem a little ‘Alice in Wonderland’ that the Claimant seeks to appeal the orders made to pursue an appeal to obtain legal expenses insurance, when on his own case, he asserts he is not well enough to manage the natural terrain of these proceedings.”
The judge also pointed out that the psychiatrist’s letter offered “no understanding or context of the fact the Claimant was sufficiently well to: (i) ask the court to exercise its Barrell jurisdiction; and (ii) seek permission to appeal”.
Why wasn’t the letter compliant with CPR Part 35?
Beyond these inconsistencies, the judge made clear that a letter of this sort, which did not include a statement of truth, was not comparable to a CPR Part 35 compliant report.
The judge said: “Plainly [the psychiatrist] is not a court appointed expert.” The psychiatrist had also not been provided with a letter of instructions or included any cardiological or psychological testing to support his arguments.
He had not provided a “specialist forensic medical report” or even referenced when he had last examined or seen the claimant. In short, the letter was completely devoid of the evidence required for it to assist the court in coming to a decision.
In summary
This case serves a two-fold warning, for instructing solicitors and expert witnesses. The former should be cautious of requesting and submitting informally presented “expert” letters or notes of this nature and expect that a judge will disregard them as unreliable.
Experts, if approached to supply evidence of this nature, would be advised not to. They may wish to reference this case, or others like it, to explain their reluctance.
Where a case would benefit from a compliant expert report, that may be the better option. But if the report would not meet the requirement to be “necessary” in enabling the court to reach a decision, experts would be wise to walk away altogether.
How can we 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 which are widely regarded as the industry gold standard by instructing parties, giving holders a recognised badge that enables them to evidence they can fulfil their expert witness duties compliantly and effectively.