Registered nutritionist for 20 years - What role of trade associations & post trial review?
I have been a registered nutritionist (RNutr) for 20 years as granted by the Association for Nutrition (AfN). I am also member of several professional bodies that play a role and accredit the skills and knowledge underpinning my role as an ‘expert’ witness in nutrition science. These include Chartered Biologist (CBiol)(Royal Biology Society) and Chartered Scientist (CSci)(Science Council).
In a recent case (Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2025] EWHC 2757) expert evidence was given by a forensic accountant whoes valuation at the quantum hearing of a company underpinned an order fixing consideration of the shares in the company.
The failure of the expert report
The appellant applied permission to appeal the decision of the court and issued a complaint to the expert’s professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW) over flaws in the respondent expert’s report.
Following the quantum hearing but before the final application the court received letters from the respondent’s expert and the ICAEW that the report was flawed. It was made clear the ICAEW had investigated the matter and had instructed another expert which contradicted the expert report. The respondent’s expert admitted his report was incorrect as found by the ICAEW and the valuation would have been markedly different.
What is the practical message here for expert witnesses?
The case highlights that the expert report must be just that an ‘expert report’ that is based on reliable data defendable under scrutiny by any party. In this case that party was not only the courts but a professional trade body that acted on evidence that was not challenged in court.
Those experts in the legal, regulatory or scientific areas of the food industry will have memberships to many organisations. These organisations will have a code of conduct, and this will include processes for acting on complaints over the professional conduct of their members.
Whilst is it’s rare that such cases fall before the courts or trade associations it is a warning to counsel that ‘expert reports’ should be made by those with training in the legal requirement and duties to the court.
This failure in the quality of the report is a thread in recent cases (Tarrant v Monkhouse [2025] EWHC 2576 (KB)) where the courts have highlighted the ignorance of some experts as to their obligations to CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 and the Bolam test.
There is a lot of window shopping for experts, and you will find those that are true experts in the field would not want to risk such exposure and thus deliver an outstanding report.
Sources:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/2757.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2576.html