BL-2022-002117 - [2025] EWHC 2794 (Ch)

I do not accept that I have been given the full story of the involvement of Peter Marples in the preparation of Mr Cohen’s expert report and the joint statement. It seems to me likely that both have approached the work on expert evidence as a joint exercise, with Mr Cohen happy to defer to Mr Marples as the client. It seems likely that there has been regular and free flowing contact and communication between Peter Marples and Mr Cohen. Both have known that what they were doing was contrary to the rules relating to the preparation of expert evidence, but have colluded together to do so anyway. They have simply bungled their attempts to keep Peter Marples’ involvement secret. Having been found out, they have dissembled to their lawyers, leading to the 13 June 2025 letter containing false statements, failed to make a clean breast of the extent of Peter Marples’involvement, for example in relation to the original report, in their factual witness statements, have made restricted disclosure of documents which would shed light on their involvement and have been evasive in their oral evidence to the court, so that each revelation has been drip fed to the Defendant and the Court. Neither has apologised, although Mr Solomon attempted an apology on behalf of the Claimants in his closing submissions.

The following conclusions flow from this:

I accordingly refuse the claimants permission to rely upon the evidence and reports of Mr Cohen.

This is now at least the third time that Mr Cohen has been criticised for his role as an expert by the Court. In addition to Rowley v Dunlop mentioned above, I was referred to Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd v Aljunaid [2019] EWHC 2097 (Ch) at paragraphs 90-91, where Mr Cohen was criticised by Deputy High Court Judge Gullick for having “approached the exercise more as an advocate than as an expert complying with the requirements of CPR Part 35” and for having expressed an “understanding of his role as being to present the case of the party instructing him in the most favourable light”. Remarkably, when asked about this case, Mr Cohen said that he had forgotten about it.

I set out below the facts, including my findings where the facts are disputed.