header-logo header-logo

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

Be prepared

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

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
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

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll