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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll