Recent trial experience has made David Locke question the effectiveness of concurrent evidence
In May 2009, UK experience of concurrent expert evidence was limited to little more than a footnote in Lord Justice Jackson’s interim report on civil litigation costs. He noted the practice in Australia and suggested that it might merit a pilot study here. Since then judicial and practitioner experience of concurrent expert evidence in civil trials has remained relatively modest.
The Manchester Concurrent Evidence Pilot published its interim report in January 2012, but seemed to accept that there was insufficient data (“ admittedly slim evidence ”) to reach any real conclusions. It was then curious that the authors were content to support the inclusion of provision for concurrent evidence within the CPR.
The Practice Direction to CPR 35 contains the relevant rules, albeit they leave a good deal to judicial discretion. The court may direct the parties to agree an agenda, and may initiate the discussion by leading the experts through the agenda and asking questions. The legal representatives are then entitled to ask questions “ designed
