It has long been recognised that when expert witnesses disagree on a matter within their expertise, the court is placed in an unsatisfactory situation of having to choose between experts in a matter which is not within the competence of the judge. This article examines some recent cases where the court has had to make such a choice. It will try to pin down exactly how the court made that choice, and to ask it the way in which the judges break the expert deadlock is satisfactory. Some reform proposals are discussed briefly.