header-logo header-logo

Body of evidence

16 September 2016 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Alec Samuels provides an update on expert witnesses providing concurrent evidence from the “hot-tub”

  • An analysis of The Civil Justice Council’s recommendations for concurrent evidence, or “hot-tubbing”, following the release of its most recent report.

Concurrent evidence, or “hot-tubbing”, is the practice of taking the evidence of the experts on both sides together, concurrently, instead of separately as part of the claimant’s case and the defendant’s case respectively. The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has issued a report, Concurrent Expert Evidence and “Hot-tubbing” in English Litigation since the “Jackson Reforms”, 1 August 2016. Seeking to publicise and to encourage the practice, to overcome the reluctance to try something new, the CJC recommends a redraft of the relevant PD35.11, and a New Guidance Note for Judges and Practitioners, and a new Information Note for Expert Witnesses.

Advantages of the hot tub

Judges and the experts like the system. An agenda is prepared by all the participants. The judge finds that he can more readily get to the real issues and the real merits.

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll