[2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

I consider that Mr Arnold was a helpful and straight forward expert. His plan and his calculation about the guide’s stopping distance were helpful and his separation distance at the time of the impact likewise. However, I cannot rely on Mr Arnold’s opinion about the separation distance when the Claimant exited turn 1 because it was deeply faulted by inaccurate and unlikely assumptions.

I was favourably impressed with Mr Wright. His report was thoughtful and well researched. He gave evidence openly and flexibly, as an expert should. His omission to advise on the key issue, separation distance at the time the Claimant exited turn 1, was odd, but it is not for me to guess the tactics behind such an omission. The parties may lead the expert evidence which they wish to lead so long as they and the expert do not mislead the Court. Where Mr Wright and Mr Arnold’s opinions clashed, I generally accept the opinions of Mr Wright.