Expert Witness - IT Specialist

Independent IT and technical investigations, reports and expert witnesses for legal cases — impartial evidence produced to the standard Part 35 requires, across more than 200 technical fields.

The full breakdown of the technical disciplines covered, practice area by practice area, is set out on our IT consultant hire page.

Expert evidence and forensic investigations

Independent investigation reports and expert witness statements for legal cases, and for businesses that need a second opinion. A court requires an experienced or qualified person to produce an unbiased and impartial statement that complies with Practice Direction 35. Ours are based on a very wide knowledge base and hands-on experience.

After an extensive investigation we provide an accurate, unbiased report written in plain language — and attend in person where that is required.

How an instruction runs

1. Pre-case assessment

   An early view on whether the technical evidence supports the claim, before costs are committed.

2. Case investigation

   Extensive examination of the systems, devices, data or records in question.

3. Expert witness report

   A written report addressed to the court, verified by a statement of truth.

4. Questions or court

   Written answers under rule 35.6, expert discussions, or attendance in person.

What the report contains

• Summary — the conclusions up front, in plain language.
• Questions and answers — the specific issues put to us, addressed directly.
• Technical analysis — the method, the evidence examined and what it shows.
• Investigation findings — what was found, and what was not.
• Conclusion — a clear opinion, with any qualification stated.

A compliant report carries a good deal more besides — qualifications, the material relied on, the substance of instructions, the range of opinion, and the expert's confirmation of their duty to the court. Those requirements are set out in full further down this page.

Sectors covered

The fields below are examples rather than a complete list — over 200 IT and technical fields are covered, indexed in full across thirteen practice areas on the IT consultant hire page.

Practice Direction 35 — the standard a report is judged against

PD35 supplements Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules and governs what a civil expert report must be and must contain. If you are instructing a technical expert for the first time, the paragraphs below are the ones that decide whether the report you receive is usable. The full text is published by the Ministry of Justice at justice.gov.uk and was last updated 1 October 2023.

Part 35 is intended to limit oral expert evidence to what is reasonably required, and where possible to have matters dealt with by a single expert. Experts and those instructing them are expected to have regard to the Guidance for the Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims 2014, published at judiciary.gov.uk.

The expert's duty — paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5

• 2.1 Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation.
• 2.2 Experts should assist the court by providing objective, unbiased opinions on matters within their expertise, and should not assume the role of an advocate.
• 2.3 Experts should consider all material facts, including those which might detract from their opinions.
• 2.4 Experts should make it clear when a question or issue falls outside their expertise, and when they cannot reach a definite opinion — for example because they have insufficient information.
• 2.5 If an expert's view changes on any material matter after the report is produced, that change must be communicated to all parties without delay, and to the court where appropriate.

What a report must contain — paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2

An expert's report is addressed to the court, not to the party who instructed the expert. It must:

1. give details of the expert's qualifications;
2. give details of any literature or other material relied on in making the report;
3. contain a statement setting out the substance of all facts and instructions material to the opinions expressed;
4. make clear which of the facts stated are within the expert's own knowledge;
5. say who carried out any examination, measurement, test or experiment used, give that person's qualifications, and say whether it was carried out under the expert's supervision;
6. where there is a range of opinion, summarise that range and give reasons for the expert's own opinion;
7. contain a summary of the conclusions reached;
8. state any qualification, where the expert cannot give an opinion without one; and
9. confirm that the expert understands and has complied with their duty to the court, and is aware of the requirements of Part 35, this practice direction and the 2014 Guidance.

The statement of truth — paragraph 3.3

Every report must be verified by a statement of truth in this form:

I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.

I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Rule 32.14 sets out the consequences of verifying a document containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth.

Written questions to the expert — paragraph 6

• A party may put written questions to the expert under rule 35.6. A copy must be sent to the other party or parties at the same time.
• The instructing party pays the expert's fee for answering them. That does not affect any later decision by the court as to who ultimately bears the expert's fees.

Single joint expert — paragraph 7

Where one expert can serve both sides, the court considers all the circumstances, and in particular whether:

• separate experts are proportionate, having regard to the amount in dispute, the importance to the parties and the complexity of the issue;
• a single joint expert is likely to resolve the issue more speedily and cost-effectively;
• the evidence goes to liability, causation or quantum;
• the area is substantially established and unlikely to be in dispute, or is likely to produce a range of expert opinion;
• a party has already instructed an expert, and whether that complied with any practice direction or pre-action protocol;
• written questions under rule 35.6 would remove the need for the other party to instruct their own expert;
• questions to a single joint expert may not conclusively deal with all issues requiring testing before trial;
• a conference with legal representatives, experts and other witnesses may be required, making a single joint expert impractical; and
• a claim to privilege makes instructing any expert as a single joint expert inappropriate.

Expert discussions and joint statements — paragraph 9

Discussions between experts are not mandatory unless the court directs them, and parties should consider early whether one would serve a useful purpose. Their purpose is not to settle the case but to narrow the issues — identifying the extent of agreement, the points of and short reasons for any disagreement, any action that might resolve outstanding points, and any further material issues.

Any agenda must not be in the form of leading questions or hostile in tone. Legal representatives do not normally attend, and where they do they should not intervene except to answer questions put to them or to advise on the law. The resulting joint statement must be signed within 7 days of the discussion and provided to the parties within 14 days of signing. Experts do not need the parties' authority to sign it, and any significant change of opinion must be explained in a note or addendum.

Concurrent expert evidence — paragraph 11

At any stage the court may direct that evidence from experts of like disciplines is given concurrently — often called hot-tubbing. The judge leads the discussion issue by issue from an agenda based on the areas of disagreement in the joint statement, questioning each expert in turn and inviting the others to comment. The parties' representatives then question the experts to test or clarify a view, or to draw out anything omitted. The judge may finally summarise each expert's position and ask them to confirm or correct it.