header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 April 2014 / Martin Burns
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

In it together

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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