header-logo header-logo

Be prepared

23 November 2012 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7539 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail
final_4

Parties must do their homework prior to expert witness discussions, warns Mark Solon

A discussion between expert witnesses to narrow the issues in a dispute can be a little like the office Christmas party. When it goes well, it improves communication and enables business to be done more efficiently. When it goes badly, each party feels aggrieved, no-one remembers exactly how they got where they ended up, and there is good chance someone might end up suing.

Directing a discussion

Experts meetings fall under Pt 35.12 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), although the provisions are notable for their brevity. The court may direct at any stage a discussion between experts; requiring experts to identify and discuss the expert issues in the proceedings and, where possible reach an agreed opinion on those issues.

The court is allowed to specify the issues which the experts must discuss, and is likely to direct that the experts provide a schedule of the areas on which they agree and disagree. Quite key to these provisions is that

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

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll