The Senate of the Republic of Latvia in its decision of 7 May 2026 in case No 11261009920, SKK-7/2026 has recalled an important principle that is relevant in any case where an expert's opinion is among the evidence.
If the court finds possible contradictions, ambiguities or doubts in the expert's opinion, this alone is not enough to find the opinion incredible or inconclusive. The court is required to carry out an effective examination of that evidence, including, if necessary, the examination of the expert, and to ascertain not only the content of the conclusions, but also the method used in the expert's examination, the manner in which it was applied and its impact on the final conclusions.
The Senate stressed in particular that the assessment of the reliability of the expert's opinion is not divorced from the assessment of the methodology used. If the court considers that the expert's conclusions are contradictory or insufficiently substantiated, it must first ascertain whether the method used in the expert report is appropriate, how it is applied in the particular case and whether the conclusions drawn by the expert follow logically from that method. Only after such an examination can a conclusion be drawn as to the reliability and probative value of the expert's opinion.
The Senate pointed out that questions concerning the validity of the expertise, the methodology and the correctness of its application are questions of expertise. Therefore, the court cannot replace the expert and interpret the substance of the scientific or professional method itself. Where doubts arise as to the approach taken in an expert report or the conclusions drawn therefrom, those doubts must first be clarified by the expert himself.
Of particular importance is the Senate's recognition that the finding of certain inconsistencies in an expert's opinion does not automatically mean that the entire opinion is implausible. Moreover, contradictions concerning the application or interpretation of the method used in the expert's opinion cannot be resolved without the involvement of the bearer of the expertise, namely the expert himself. Therefore, in situations where doubts arise as to the methodology of an expert examination or the conclusions drawn therefrom, the expert must be questioned.
This ruling reaffirms an important procedural principle: a court cannot limit itself to reading an expert's conclusions. The court must also assess how those conclusions were reached, what method was used, whether it is appropriate to the situation and whether there is a logical and reasonable link between the methodology used and the final conclusions. Only such a comprehensive examination ensures a fair assessment of the evidence and a lawful ruling.
Lessons learned in practice: when disputing an expert's opinion, it is not enough to focus on the conclusions. Often, the decisive issue is the method itself - how it was used, whether it was appropriate to the circumstances, and whether it was even capable of leading to the conclusions the expert reached.
