This is a cautionary tale for civil litigators who agree an experts' meeting too early in proceedings. You may be bound by the findings even if your expert has not had adequate instructions. Since this is not a matter of wide public interest, but crucial to civil litigators, I simply provide this quotation from Smith LJ that links to the judgment:
"I observed that in my experience it was unusual for a joint statement to be ordered, as it was here, before expert reports had been exchanged. We were told that this is not an uncommon practice in the Technology and Construction Court. It seems to me that there are dangers inherent in producing a joint statement until after expert reports have been exchanged. There is a danger that one expert might express agreement with the other expert which, on taking full instructions from his client after production of his report, he wishes to resile from. It appears that that is what has happened here."
Aird v Prime Premeridian
"I observed that in my experience it was unusual for a joint statement to be ordered, as it was here, before expert reports had been exchanged. We were told that this is not an uncommon practice in the Technology and Construction Court. It seems to me that there are dangers inherent in producing a joint statement until after expert reports have been exchanged. There is a danger that one expert might express agreement with the other expert which, on taking full instructions from his client after production of his report, he wishes to resile from. It appears that that is what has happened here."
Aird v Prime Premeridian
No comments:
Post a Comment