Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 33
Rigorous recording fails through a di昀昀erent set of
pressures: the informality of technical discussions
between expert and client, the assumption that
some communications are “just logistics” rather
than substantive instruction, and the failure to apply
to forensic investigation the same documentation
discipline that engineers are accustomed to
applying in certi昀椀ed design and manufacturing
environments. The two failure modes are distinct.
Both are predictable. Both are avoidable with care.
is reliable: Built on 昀椀rm factual foundations, with
remaining uncertainties clearly stated for the court
to consider.
The challenge is one of human behaviours.
Con昀椀rmation bias, advocacy drift, and poorly
recorded evidence are precisely the problems the
rules are designed to address. The expert who
recognises them in their own practice, and builds
deliberate counter-measures into their investigation
from the outset, is doing better engineering and
better law simultaneously.
When these requirements fail: two cases
The consequences of failing the 昀椀rst requirement
are illustrated by Agilisys Ltd v CGI IT UK Ltd,
a commercial action concerning a disputed IT
services subcontract. The court found CGI’s
expert’s approach “one-sided” and “not balanced”
— speci昀椀cally because he had failed to consider
whether his own instructing party might have been
in breach of its obligations. By contrast, the opposing
expert, who was prepared to make criticisms of her
own instructing party, had her evidence accepted
across the board. The court drew an explicit
distinction between an expert who had tested both
perspectives and one who had not. The one-sided
expert’s evidence was largely rejected.
Physics doesn’t care who’s
ultimately, does the court.
Neither,
About the Authors
Jason Madge CEng MIMechE is a Director of Elemeca Ltd. He
holds a PhD in the numerical modelling of wear and fatigue and
a 昀椀rst-class MEng in Mechanical Engineering. His career spans
aerospace gearbox design and development, critical defence
transmission systems at Rolls-Royce, and the investigation of
failures across rotating machinery, load-bearing components,
and welded assemblies.
Lorenzo Baietta CEng MIMechE is a Director of Elemeca Ltd.
A former Rolls-Royce Principal Engineer for Systems and AI
and Renault Formula 1 composites designer, he specialises in
complex system integration and aerospace propulsion. He holds
an MSc in Automotive Engineering and a BSc in Aerospace
Engineering.
The consequences of failing the second are
illustrated by Dana UK Axle Ltd v Freudenberg FST
GmbH [2021] EWHC 1413 (TCC), a manufacturing
defect claim arising from the premature failure of
polymer seals supplied for installation in Jaguar
Land Rover vehicles. Freudenberg’s three technical
experts were found to have received a sustained
昀氀ow of undisclosed information directly from
Freudenberg’s own engineers — through site visits,
calls, and email exchanges not disclosed to the
opposing party and not recorded in the reports. Mrs
Justice Joanna Smith excluded all three experts on
day seven of trial, 昀椀nding that their conduct called
into question their impartiality and created doubt
as to whether their reports re昀氀ected independent
analysis. Judgment was entered for Dana in the sum
of £11.24 million, with indemnity costs.
Engineering & Forensic Investigation
When engineering failure becomes evidence.
Independent, first-principles engineering analysis for litigation, insurance claims and
dispute resolution – from root-cause failure investigation to full mechanical and
systems engineering analysis.
Aerospace engineering
Forensic Investigation
In Dana, the analytical opinions may have been
defensible. The process that produced them was not. The
court’s response was the same as if the analysis itself had
been demonstrably biased: once the independence of the
investigation could not be veri昀椀ed, the opinions derived
from it were worthless.
Simulation & FEA
Failure analysis
Mechanical design
Composites engineering
Systems & integration
Jason Madge PhD, CEng MIMechE
Applies first-principles engineering across aerospace and industrial sectors.
Specialises in root-cause investigation of mechanical failures, turning complex findings
into clear, defensible evidence
Lorenzo Baietta MSc, CEng MIMechE
A shared standard
Directs systems engineering and requirements-management expertise to complex
technical disputes, Aerospace and Formula 1 background underpins rigorous,
evidence-led analysis.
The two requirements discussed here — analytical
impartiality and rigorous recording — are demanded
by civil procedure and by engineering science for
the same reason: they are what it takes to produce
an opinion that can be trusted. The Expert Witness
has a unique privilege in being permitted to o昀昀er
an opinion in court. It is essential that this opinion
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
paying.
Contact:
Website: www.elemeca.com
Email: info@elemeca.com
Address: 15 Neptune Court, Vanguard Way, Cardiff, CF24 5PJ, Wales, UK
31
AUGUST 2026
