header-logo header-logo

04 February 2022 / Maja Glowka , Tim Giles , Jessica Resch
Issue: 7965 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

A new model for joint expert statements

71166
An alternative approach to joint expert statements could deliver a far more useful tool for judges, as Jessica Resch, Tim Giles & Maja Glowka explain
  • The case for a single valuation model, agreed by the experts, to allow a judge to make decisions on each assumption in the calculations and see their real-time impact on the damages assessment.

As valuation and damages experts, we have been involved in many joint expert statements. For those unfamiliar: where the claimant and defendant have each appointed a damages expert, the judge may request a joint expert statement be provided. The joint statement is written together by the experts and should provide the judge with a summary of the issues on which the experts agree, and those on which they cannot agree. In some cases, the experts are given specific instructions or questions to address in the joint statement.

The process to agree a statement can be difficult and sometimes long, but the complaint that joint statements

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll