Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s...
Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related...
EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub...
Nothing short of a demolition of the expert's evidence Nothing short of a demolition of the expert's evidence

Nothing short of a demolition of the expert's evidence

The expert paediatrician in this case misidentified and confused twins when reading the primary medical disclose. This fundamental error was of...
Is baldness a disease? Is baldness a disease?

Is baldness a disease?

Mr Simon Britten, immediate past chair of the British Orthopaedic Association Medico-legal Committee, in his foreword to the forthcoming Expert...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings
Keith Rix 566

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

byKeith Rix

 
Commentary

Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This case referred to a circumstance more commonly, or perhaps seldom otherwise, encountered in the Technology and Construction Court. 

Expert evidence issue

In this case reference was made to the usual practice in the Technology and Construction Court, of the experts being directed to meet on a without prejudice basis before the exchange of their reports. The purpose of that direction is that it encourages experts to express independent opinions without any concern that they are departing from what they have already committed to writing in their reports, and that their reports will then be limited to the matters which are still in dispute. Although that ought to encourage briefer reports, experts not uncommonly end up explaining what they have agreed and why. Sometimes that is genuinely necessary in order to enable the court to understand the effect of the agreements that they have reached, or to explain the areas of disagreement that remain. Sometimes it is, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, confusing. Which it is, is necessarily case specific.

Learning point
  • In a TCC case, where the experts are directed to meet before the exchange of reports, it may be sufficient to report no more than the identified points of disagreement but it does depend on the nature of the case.

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.