header-logo header-logo

24 March 2011 / Charles Lazarevic
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

In at the deep end

Charles Lazarevic weighs up the pros and cons of life in the hot tub

“Hot tubbing” or “witness conferencing” is where two or more expert witnesses are sworn in simultaneously and participate in a discussion chaired by a judge. The procedure is new to UK civil courts and may evolve with time, although it has become established in arbitrations, where some arbitral bodies’ rules have permitted concurrent expert evidence for some time..

What is concurrent expert evidence?

The experts issue written reports and usually meet pre-trial to identify points of agreement/disagreement. At trial, the experts are sworn in simultaneously and the judge chairs a discussion between them. If a joint statement has been prepared, the matters upon which the experts disagree serve as the agenda. After the judge has put his questions, counsel can then usually question the experts. The experts can also question each other. Another variation allows for a conventional cross-examination by counsel before the judge puts his questions and chairs the discussion. The expert should be given the

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