header-logo header-logo

24 June 2010 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7423 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Expert preparation

Mark Solon reports on the risks stemming from speculative expert evidence & a lack of preparation

The trial bundle must include all disclosed experts’ reports, relevant to matters that remain in dispute on which the parties seek to rely. In a complex case a separate bundle of the expert evidence might be necessary. Further steps to take are listed below:

(i) Ensure that you include the correct final served version of the expert’s report in the bundle.
(ii) Note that written questions on the experts’ reports, under CPR 35.6, and the experts’ replies form part of the reports and should be filed with them in the bundle.
(iii) Note that the joint statements of experts’ discussions under CPR 35.12 are not binding, and need not be included in the bundle, although they will be on the court file. If both parties are content to be bound by the statements then they should be included in the bundle.
(iv) Consider where to locate documents referred to in the experts’ reports. Witness statements, statements of case etc are best filed elsewhere. However,

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
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
back-to-top-scroll