Although these modern techniques of engineering analysis are very important there is still a place for careful experimentation and reconstruction. A recent High Court case involved a claim that a motorcycle carburettor was prone to icing. An alleged consequence of the icing was that power was lost very quickly, causing the rider to lose control. It was necessary to carry out bench tests to investigate whether icing did occur and later, on a motorcycle whose fuel system had been modified to produce icing, to investigate how the motorcycle behaved when icing started. These latter tests were done in a wind tunnel.

Experiments are also useful in Intellectual property cases, such as demonstrating the action of an RCD when being triggered by an electrical leak or surge. Model building is often crucial, especially if done according to the instructions or specification of a patent. In a recent case before the High Court, such a model of a lawnmower helped to resolve the exact issues at stake in the trial. The patent was found to be invalid, partly because its claims included the prior art shown in the model.

Analysis of witness evidence remains a key duty of experts called by the court. This includes the eye-witnesses of an accident as well as other experts. It covers statements and reports made before trial, as well as direct and cross-examination before the court. Experts frequently have to agree (or disagree) about the key points in a case before trial, so that the judge has a clear view of what separates the parties involved in a dispute. Final resolution of issues often comes only during cross-examination on the stand, but some questions may still remain unanswered. In civil cases, the judge has to decide only on the balance of probability.