Edmond, Gary, Ferguson, Ann and Ward, Tony (2018) Assessing concurrent expert evidence. Civil Justice Quarterly, 37 (3). pp. 344-366. ISSN 0261-9261
Text
Assessing Concurrent Evidence accepted Nov 2017.docx - Accepted Version Download (79kB) |
Abstract
Concurrent expert evidence or hot tubbing takes a variety of forms, which depart from the conventional presentation of evidence by having experts called by different parties give their evidence together and/or directly question one another. Amendments recently approved to CPR 35.11 following the Civil Justice Council (CJC) review of concurrent evidence aim to ‘steer’ the courts towards greater use of a judge-led form of hot tubbing. This article reviews what is known about concurrent evidence in UK jurisdictions, and in particular what can be gleaned from published judgments in cases where it has been used. The evidence for the effectiveness of such procedures is largely anecdotal and impressionistic, and much of it relates to specialist courts and tribunals where factfinders have some degree of expertise in the witnesses’ field. While not disputing that concurrent evidence can work well when skilfully employed, we question whether enough is known to justify a widespread extension of judge-led concurrent evidence to generalist civil courts.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Uncontrolled Keywords: | Civil procedure, Expert evidence, Concurrent evidence |
Subjects: | M100 Law by area |
Department: | Faculties > Business and Law > Northumbria Law School |
Depositing User: | Tony Ward |
Date Deposited: | 01 Dec 2017 10:15 |
Last Modified: | 10 Oct 2019 20:16 |
URI: | http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/32674 |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year