The Issue
Expert evidence is permitted where it is reasonably required to resolve proceedings. In a case involving alleged forgery, document composition, metadata analysis and signature authenticity, forensic document evidence is not optional — it is the primary means by which disputed authenticity can be assessed by an independent, court-instructed expert. Exclusion of expert evidence in such a case is not case management: it is the removal of the route to truth.
The Law: How It Should Operate
CPR 35.1 — expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. CPR 35.4 — no party may call an expert without the court's permission. The corollary is that where permission is required and refused in a case where expert evidence goes to the central disputed issue, the refusal prevents the party from establishing their case rather than merely managing it. Daniels v Walker [2000] — the court should not refuse expert evidence where it is genuinely necessary for the fair resolution of the dispute.
How It Operated in Lawrence v HNW Lending Ltd
Expert evidence from Karen Caramiello BSc MSc of Keith Borer Consultants was available before trial. The overlay analysis of the two loan agreements demonstrated that their signature pages were forensically indistinguishable — copies of the same master. This evidence was not permitted before the strike-out of the Defence and Counterclaim. The court then treated the absence of expert evidence as confirmation that the forgery case was not sustainable. The forensic route to testing authenticity was closed before authenticity was decided.
"The question is not whether one court reached one adverse result. It is that the same failure of protection recurred across courts, tribunals, administration, policing and oversight — making the pattern visible only because the case passed through so many forums."
— Open Letter to the Lord Chancellor, 15 May 2026