header-logo header-logo

A new model for joint expert statements

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll