Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 14
Jointly instructed expert witnesses
remain subject to judicial scrutiny
by Bond Solon.
A recent High Court case con昀椀rms 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 昀椀ndings of fact that
are determinative, and this may not always align
with the evidence of the jointly instructed expert.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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 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
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
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.”
12
JUNE 2026
