Experts

QC proposes ‘no disclosure’ rule for arbitrations

Peter Rees QC

Arbitrations should begin with a default position of no disclosure of documents, a leading QC has argued. Peter Rees QC said for many disputes, each side had “all the documents it needs” and disclosure was a “time-consuming and expensive luxury”.

July 21st, 2017

Rule committee takes ‘softly, softly’ approach to expanding approach to hot-tubbing

Jacuzzi

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee agreed minor variations that judges can adopt in orders for concurrent expert evidence – known as ‘hot-tubbing’ – but acknowledged the changes it has approved to the CPR are “not as radical” as had been recommended by the Civil Justice Council.

July 14th, 2017

Rule committee opts for straightforward approach to hot-tubbing

Courthouse

Concurrent expert evidence – known as hot-tubbing – should only be carried out in the “classic” manner where experts are sworn and give evidence at the same time, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has decided. It decided against an alternative approached that embraced “the full range of methods”.

June 27th, 2017

Silk takes over as new chairman of Expert Witness Institute

Martin Spencer QC 2

The Expert Witness Institute has appointed leading clinical negligence specialist Martin Spencer QC as its new chair of governors. He replaces the Sir Anthony Hooper, who completed his four-year tenure at the institute’s AGM last month.

June 13th, 2017

Judges “need neutral assistance” in commercial cases, says Lord Chief Justice

Lord Thomas_crop

The legal profession’s objections to judges having access to neutral assistance from a third party when facing specialist commercial or scientific matters in court need to be overcome, the Lord Chief Justice has said. He also revealed that the judiciary was “revisiting the rather neglected use of judges as arbitrators”.

May 19th, 2017

Hot-tubbing of experts should not be “forced on unwilling parties”

Courthouse

The giving of concurrent evidence by expert witnesses or ‘hot-tubbing’ should not be “forced on unwilling parties,” a sub-committee of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has advised. The rule committee agreed with this and has asked it to draft rule changes that would nonetheless promote the practice.

May 18th, 2017

Fixed-cost plans for clinical negligence “will prevent many cases being brought”, CJC warns

surgeons

Government plans to impose fixed costs on clinical negligence cases worth up to £25,000 “will prevent many cases being brought”, the Civil Justice Council has warned. The CJC said it was particularly concerned that the new regime for experts “may indeed prove to be a barrier to access to justice”.

May 11th, 2017

Insurer loses bid to appeal indemnity costs issue in unusual case where expert agreed to cover its costs

coins

An insurer has failed to convince a judge that a medical expert who agreed to cover its costs in a whiplash case should be ordered to pay on the indemnity basis. Ageas Insurance appealed against the ruling at Liverpool County Court, but the appeal was rejected by the High Court.

May 9th, 2017

Court of Appeal warns judges against interrupting witness evidence too much

Sir Geoffrey Vos

The Chancellor of the High Court has urged judges to “temper eagerness with restraint” in the way they conduct trials, after a circuit judge was found to have made excessive interventions while witnesses were giving evidence. He warned that “continuous interruptions during cross-examination can so often do more harm than good”.

April 10th, 2017

Rule committee backs moves to increase take-up of expert ‘hot-tubbing’

stethoscope on keyboard - medical report

Expert witnesses giving concurrent evidence – or ‘hot-tubbing’ – should be the default position in the Mercantile Court and Technology and Construction Court, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has suggested as it backed efforts to increase the knowledge and take-up of the procedure.

April 4th, 2017

Blog

Third-party funders – access to justice warriors?

Christopher Deadman 2

Comments on UNISON’s landmark victory against the government in respect of employment tribunal fees got me thinking about the whole ‘access to justice’ argument and the role that third-party funders play. I have sat in lots of meetings over the years where funders, some even with a straight face, claim that access to justice is a cornerstone of their business. That is a statement of almost North Korean bogusness. Funders who trot out the access to justice argument are guilty of conflating the by-product of their business with the

August 17th, 2017

Featured Associate

Featured Associate

Robins Cost Consultants

Visit website