Bond Solon recently published an excellent article examining three High Court judgments from 2026 that should be of interest to anyone acting as an expert witness. Although the cases arise from different areas of litigation, they share a common theme: each illustrates how an expert's credibility can be undermined when they lose sight of their primary duty to the court.

There is an assumption that aesthetic treatment claims arise only due to the fact that a procedure has been performed poorly, but in reality, the factors involved are frequently more complex.

Recurring themes seen in medico-legal reviews offer valuable insight into clinical practice and highlight the importance of the decisions made throughout the patient journey.

When it comes to civil claims, the court works on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof. A judge does not need scientific certainty in order to reach a conclusion, and the court must decide what is more likely than not based on the evidence available. 

Once an outcome is known, particularly an adverse one, it often appears more predictable than it was at the time. This is known as hindsight bias. It is a well-recognised cognitive bias in legal analysis, and it has a direct impact on how cases in aesthetic medicine are interpreted.

One of the most difficult positions an expert witness can find themselves in is this: you have completed your analysis, agreed a common approach with the opposing experts, and the results are not what your instructing party hoped for.