Commentary

Several times I took part in experts’ meetings or discussions for which I drafted, before the meeting or discussion, the joint statement but, instead of engaging in a discussion of the issues, the adverse party’s experts said that they would come back to me with their text to insert in the draft joint statements.  

Learning points:

• An experts’ meeting or discussion requires real engagement on the outstanding issues.

• Two statements, one from each expert, are not a joint statement.

• Waiting to concede in oral testimony points that could have been agreed in the experts’ discussion or meeting is not in the interests of justice.

• Ask yourself if your methodology has a principled basis.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login