Evidence & investigations · expert witness & reports
An expert report isn't advocacy with exhibits. Under the civil rules, the expert's duty to the court overrides any obligation to whoever instructs or pays — and a report that forgets that is worth less than no report at all. We write ours accordingly.
Talk it through, in confidence
01273 964902
| The report | What it's for | What it includes |
|---|---|---|
| Findings report | Internal decisions, HR processes, early advice | Findings, method summary, plain-English conclusions |
| Insurer / loss report | Claims, quantum and cause questions | Findings plus cause analysis and supporting exhibits |
| CPR Part 35 report | Civil litigation in England and Wales | Duty to the court, statements of truth and compliance, full methodology, instructions summarised |
| CrimPR Part 19 report | Criminal proceedings | As above to the criminal rules — qualifications, reliability information, and credibility disclosure |
| Single joint expert | Where the court directs one expert for both sides | The same report, answerable to both parties and the court |
Every instruction starts with a confidential conversation: what happened, which devices and accounts exist, and what question the evidence needs to answer. You get a fixed written quote before any examination begins — and the initial scoping costs nothing.
Instructions are recorded and summarised in the report; anything bearing on credibility — including that we are an independent, non-accredited lab — is disclosed before a word of analysis is written.
The examination is run and written up as if the other side's expert were watching — because eventually, they are. Findings read the same whichever party instructs us.
The report is built to CPR Part 35 or CrimPR Part 19: methodology, exhibits, chain of custody, statements of truth and compliance — and plain English above the technical appendix.
You receive the findings — report, exhibits and supporting files — with hashes, continuity records and our contemporaneous notes preserved. If the work is ever tested by another expert or a tribunal, the trail is there to be followed.
The disclosure rule worth knowing before you instruct anyone: since April 2019, criminal procedure directions have required parties to disclose matters capable of undermining an expert's reliability — with lack of accreditation named explicitly. Any expert who buries that is building your case on sand. Ours goes on page one.
Two businesses, one deleted folder, two theories. The imaged drive supported neither side's favourite story — and said so, with the timeline to prove it. The matter settled within a month of the report being exchanged.
A findings report states what was found and how. A court report adds the overriding duty to the court, statements of truth and compliance, summarised instructions, full methodology and chain of custody — and disclosure of anything affecting credibility.
Formally: the court. The duty to assist the court overrides any obligation to the instructing or paying party — which is precisely what makes a compliant report worth having.
Yes — where the court directs a single joint expert, we report to both parties on identical terms, which tends to concentrate everyone's minds.
It will be disclosed, as the rules require — and weighed alongside methodology, which is where reports actually live or die. What sinks experts is overclaiming; we don't.
Loops overwrite, artefacts age, deadlines pass. Open a case first — the scoping conversation is free and confidential either way.