Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 22
Expert evidence may face
scrutiny at any time, even after
a judicial decision
by Bond Solon
The ICAEW representative explained that the
professional body had investigated the matter.
This involved instructing an accountant to make
an independent valuation, which determined the
company had no value at the material time.
1. The facts of the case
Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2025] EWHC 2757
concerns an application for security for costs by
the respondent to the appeal. The security for
costs application was made in the context of the
appellant’s appeal against an order of ICC Judge
Barber dated 14 November 2024.
3. The outcome of the case
The respondent’s application for security of costs
was dismissed by the court, and the appellant was
allowed to adduce further evidence and amend his
grounds of appeal.
This application follows a 2021 petition by the
respondent alleging unfair prejudice in relation to
the conduct of the a昀昀airs of a company. After trial, the
appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs
at a sum to be 昀椀xed. Directions were given for the
quantum stage by the judge, including permission
to the respondent to adduce valuation evidence
from a forensic accountant. As the appellant refused
to pay intermediate costs, he was debarred from the
quantum hearing and was unable to challenge the
respondent expert’s report.
The judge noted that the new evidence could
fundamentally undermine the previous valuation
judgment. He said the “proceedings need to be
brought to a conclusion by getting to the bottom of
what happened” in the quantum trial.
4. What can experts learn from this case?
This case presents a stark reminder to experts of the
repercussions of failing to provide a reliable report,
and that even if their evidence is not challenged in
court, it has the potential to be scrutinised at a later
stage.
At the quantum hearing, the judge made an order
昀椀xing consideration of the shares in the company at
£3.3 million plus interest of £600,000.
2. Professional body steps in
However, in December 2024 the appellant applied
for permission to appeal his debarment order, and
issued a complaint to the expert’s professional body,
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England
and Wales (ICAEW) over 昀氀aws in the respondent
expert’s report.
Whilst this is a rare case, experts should note that
there is always the potential for 昀氀awed evidence to
be brought to light. As such it is critical that experts
only supply evidence to a court that they believe to
be watertight.
References
Just before that 昀椀nal application was heard but
following the quantum hearing, the court received
letters from the respondent’s expert and from a
representative of the ICAEW. In the letters, the
expert had accepted that the report he drafted, and
that had been relied upon to value the company,
was 昀氀awed. Most concerningly, he admitted that the
correct value of the company at the time would have
been nearer to nil.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
1
20
Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2025] EWHC 2757 (Ch)
(07 October 2025)
- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/2757.html
FEBRUARY 2026
