header-logo header-logo

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

Body of evidence

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll