header-logo header-logo

29 June 2012 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7520 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Experts in hot water

Is expert witness hot-tubbing the future, asks Mark Solon

Earlier this year saw the conclusion of a pilot in the Manchester technology court and mercantile court of the practice that has colloquially become known as hot-tubbing.

Hot-tubbing’s formal and rather less glamorous title, concurrent expert evidence, is nonetheless one of the most exciting developments to take place within expert evidence for some time.

What is hot-tubbing?

The practice, which originated in Australia, involves experts meeting before a judge to debate the key issues in the case, with the judge acting as a chair. The experts will already have prepared written reports in the normal way, and come up with a joint statement of areas on which they agree and disagree. During the meeting, barristers are able to grill experts on the areas of disagreement and experts are able to ask each other questions; challenging each other’s evidence and testing each other’s knowledge of the case and of their specialism.

The procedure is a marked departure from our traditional adversarial system, in which

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