header-logo header-logo

04 April 2014 / Sandy Mackay
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Forewarned is forearmed

web_mackay

Sandy Mackay highlights the benefits of early expert witness meetings

Recently, the courts have been in favour of instructing meetings between experts of like discipline before formal hearings, in order to narrow the issues between the parties and get a measure of agreement. These meetings should be held before the experts’ reports have been written or exchanged, and are intended to explore the middle ground, examine where differences of opinion are present, and discuss the underlying facts. However, this approach requires a radical change in the way that some cases are run, notably clinical negligence actions.

Where to begin?

It is helpful to begin these meetings with a review of the history of the dispute and a review of the differences between the parties, noting down where there can be agreement on basic facts such as location, timing and applicable standards. This enables a factual discussion without consideration at this stage of blame or liability, encouraging an open exchange of views. It often brings to light significant details that one side or 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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll