Practice points on expert discussions and joint reports



The meeting of experts and the ensuing joint report is often a pivotal moment in the course of litigation.

The Civil Justice Council Guidance contains a number of provisions relating to discussions between experts and joint reports. Of particular interest in multi-track cases are the following points that are sometimes missed:

  • the parties, their lawyers and experts are required co-operate to produce an agenda for any discussion between experts (a point that should also be borne in mind when compiling costs budgets).
  • The joint statement should be prepared setting out, among other matters a record of further action, if any, to be taken or recommended, including if appropriate a further discussion between experts (this may be important if, for example, scans are outstanding or other tests may resolve matters).

It is not unheard of for an expert to completely change his or her conclusions in the joint statement. In such circumstances CPR Part 35 did not rule out the granting of permission to call a further expert.

However, under CPR PD 35 para 9(8), if an expert significantly alters his or her opinion in the joint statement, that statement must include a note by that expert explaining the change of opinion.

This was an issue that arose in the recent case of Wright v Firstgroup PLC (2018) 12th January 2018 where a Judge allowed a trial to be adjourned in order for a Claimant to instruct a new accident reconstruction expert following a road traffic accident, where his expert had changed his opinion following a joint meeting of the experts.

The Judge found that while a party did not have a right to change experts especially at such a late stage simply because the expert said something disadvantageous to them, in this case the Claimant was maintaining that his expert had significantly altered his opinion but that there had been no explanatory note in accordance with the CPR (see above).

The Judge considered that there was a lack of clarity regarding the claimant’s expert’s current view, and that this meant that the Claimant was at an unjustified disadvantage if forced to proceed on the basis of the current expert evidence.

If the Claimant had succeeded at trial his damages were likely to be substantial and so all in the circumstances the Court took the exceptional course to adjourn the trial and allow the claimant to instruct a new accident reconstruction expert.

Similarly in Stallwood v David and Adamson [2006] EWHC 2600, QB, a Claimant’s medical expert changed his opinion after a discussion with the defendant’s expert. The Claimant was nonetheless allowed to call a second expert, partly because she had lost confidence in the first one, and partly because the judge had made comments at the case management conference that heightened the Claimant’s sense of grievance.

After the joint report is signed it may be that an expert changes his mind on issues that were apparently agreed in that report.

Such a situation arose in Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWHC 1254 (QB). The Judge noted that while an expert was entitled to change his mind after a joint statement was signed, a clear explanation from him for this change of mind was required. In this case the Judge rejected expert’s suggestion that the joint experts’ report did not accurately represent his opinion at the time when he signed it.

Similarly in Garcia v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 3137 a Defendant applied to adduce a supplementary statement from an expert in which he qualified some of the statements that he had made in the joint statement of the experts. The Judge allowed this supplementary statement to be served because if the expert had changed his opinion on relevant matters it was necessary to know that as soon as possible, and serving a supplementary statement would provide the Claimant with a fair opportunity to consider that change of evidence before cross examination, where the change of mind would have been revealed in any event.

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Dekinar: Understanding the New Fixed Costs Regime for Cross-Border Claims

In this webinar, Thomas Yarrow and Anirudh Mandagere will take a look at the new fixed costs regime with a specific eye on its impacts on litigation with a cross-border element. Thomas and Anirudh will also answer any questions you may have on the issues…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)