To list or not to list, that is the question To list or not to list, that is the question

To list or not to list, that is the question

This judgment appears to provide some clarity on an issue about which seemingly conflicting advice is given to experts. It concerns the listing of...
Graham Harry Moore v Sarah Joanne Pochin MP & Anor [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB) Graham Harry Moore v Sarah Joanne Pochin MP & Anor [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB)

Graham Harry Moore v Sarah Joanne Pochin MP & Anor [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB)

The Petitioner, who was one of 15 candidates in an English Parliamentary By-Election, alleged that his vote count of 50 was fraudulently...
Not a fundamentally dishonest stroke victim Not a fundamentally dishonest stroke victim

Not a fundamentally dishonest stroke victim

This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out...
Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice

Podcast Episode 19: Transparency and Open Justice

In this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we explore recent developments in Transparency and Open Justice. You can also catch our...
A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Paramedical Skin Camouflage Expert Witness

Vanessa Jane Davies is the founder of Skin Camouflage Services, an independent expert practice offering paramedical skin camouflage, non-invasive scar...
Podcast Episode 18: Pro Bono Expert Evidence Podcast Episode 18: Pro Bono Expert Evidence

Podcast Episode 18: Pro Bono Expert Evidence

Today is the start of the 24th UK Pro Bono Week. In this extra edition of the Expert Matters Podcast we discuss the EWI's recent Partnership with...
A Day in the Life of a Speech and Language Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Speech and Language Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Speech and Language Expert Witness

We speak to a consultant Speech and Language Therapist providing assessments for Special Educational Need (SEND) tribunals and writing medicolegal...
Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

October 10th is World Mental Health Day and in this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at the issue of wellbeing and...
A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Jewellery and Gemstone Expert Witness

Dr Richard Taylor is an Expert in the identification, verification and valuation of diamonds, gemstones, jewellery, watches, silver and antiques. He...

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 1359

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.