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

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