header-logo header-logo

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

In it together

Martin Burns explains hot-tubbing & how it helps judges decide cases

 

The use of experts in court proceedings has increased dramatically since John Smeaton, a civil engineer, was called to testify in court for a case related to the silting-up of the harbour at Wells-next-the-sea in Norfolk in 1782.

 

Expert testimony in today’s courts is now commonplace. Because it is usually concerned with matters that fall outside the court’s sphere of knowledge, it is often also complicated.

A frustrating process

Traditionally, when expert evidence is given, each party will call one or more expert witnesses whose evidence is intended to help the court understand complex issues and thus support a particular party’s case. Cross-examination is the traditional method for testing that evidence.

This methodology has given rise to a number of concerns. Examining counsel can take individual experts through mind-numbing minutiae of their reports and assumptions. Huge amounts of court time can be spent on cross-examination of each expert in turn. For judges and tribunals who are not experts in a particular

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