Expert Witness Journal Issue 64 December 2025 - Flipbook - Page 24
The Inevitability of Greater
Regulation: What Does the Future
Hold for Experts?
by Tom Thurlow, Partner & Lara Tulip, Trainee Solicitor at Weightmans
The Bond Solon’s 2025
Expert Witness Survey
experts for whom this is the cornerstone of their
profession.
Bond Solon recently released the results of its ‘2025
Expert Witness Survey’, which provides invaluable
insight into the views of the profession.
We would also imagine that whilst the larger expert
out昀椀ts would be less concerned with these changes
(many will already have the necessary processes
and procedures in place) the many experts who still
operate as sole trader or small partnerships will see
this as a much greater threat. That would not be
unfounded, and indeed where in other professions
we have seen the imposition of greater regulation,
contraction of the market tends to follow.
Among the interesting 昀椀ndings, what was perhaps
most headline grabbing was the fact that only 59% of
those surveyed were in favour of greater regulation,
meaning 41% were opposed.
For those of us who operate in the professional
regulatory/disciplinary space this is not that
surprising and we have seen similar reactions from
other nascent professions who have been on a
regulatory journey. Whilst no doubt the reasons for
those on either side will be various, we would not
be surprised if factors in昀氀uencing those who are
against greater regulation include:
•
the question over what training and
quali昀椀cation requirements would mean in
practice and would that limit the scope of
experts’ ability to act in certain 昀椀elds / types
of work
•
the worry that formal regulation would impose
onerous reporting obligations
•
the potential for external auditing and
procedural requirements which may be
disproportionate to the size of operations
•
the fear that regulation would make experts
subject to disciplinary proceedings
The natural next step?
If greater regulation for experts does come however,
it would not be a ‘bolt out of the blue’, but rather an
unsurprising evolution of the profession.
In 2011, Jones v Kaney 2011 UKSC 13 abolished the
long-standing immunity experts enjoyed against
negligence actions for their preparatory work and
evidence. The decision reinforced the professional
obligations of expert witnesses and underscored that
whilst an expert’s paramount duty is to the court,
this does not negate the professional duty of care
owed to the instructing party. A watershed moment
for the profession, this naturally led to experts
needing to hold proper professional indemnity in
place, and shifted the dial on their relationship with
their client and instructing solicitors. For insurers,
this also of course birthed a new market.
•
the concern that such requirements may
operate to impinge on the independence of
their methodology
•
the possibility of higher insurance premiums.
Whilst the position has since then largely — at least
formally — not changed, in our experience there
has been a ‘professionalising’ of the regulation and
indeed certainly the way the larger out昀椀ts conduct
themselves and run their businesses is some far way
from what used to be the case.
Regulation would no doubt impose greater
standards, procedural requirements or codes of
practice which some see as limiting professional
judgement which is particularly important for
Whilst not hugely reported, the dial recently shifted
again when in JSC Commercial Bank PrivatBank
v Kolomoisky and others [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch)
the court held that experts have a duty to disclose
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
21
DECEMBER/JANUARY 2025-2026
