Mark James & Penny Harper ask what did Jackson do for experts?
Expert evidence is expensive. In his Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, Jackson LJ looked at possible savings in five areas: (i) prolixity; (ii) when experts should be instructed; (iii) case management; (iv) single joint experts; and (v) “hot tubbing”.
Prolixity
Reports in the fields of accident reconstruction, psychiatry and pain management were identified as showing a marked tendency to prolixity. Of course, the over-long expert report is not confined to these disciplines. In more general terms, Jackson LJ’s Preliminary Report had noted concerns about the inclusion of irrelevant material in reports and made the criticism that “the tendency for an expert to set out the facts of the case at the start of their report simply adds to costs without achieving anything” (para 42.11.1).
This criticism is misplaced. It is important that the expert sets out the facts of the case in his report because this makes clear to the court, and to the other party, whether or not the expert has based his report on the correct facts
