header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 July 2012 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

The heat is on

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Chris Pamplin reports on some initial findings about expert evidence given concurrently from the “hot tub”

The great advantage claimed for the practice of “hot-tubbing”, a procedure that allows experts to give their evidence concurrently and for judge-led “discussion” of the expert issues, is that it saves time. The expert issues that are agreed, and those that are not, are established quickly, and the examination and cross-examination of two or more experts can often be completed in the time it would otherwise take to deal with a single witness. It enables experts to give a direct and immediate view on the opposing evidence and to comment on points as they arise. The court can then consider all aspects of the expert evidence together and while matters are still fresh in the mind.

Time is money

The old adage “time is money” has never been truer than when applied to the English civil courts, and the relative expense of expert evidence in contested proceedings is a matter that has been uppermost in 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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll