The expert report gets the attention, but a great deal of a case is settled in the experts' discussion that follows it. Two experts who have each written carefully now have to sit down, work through the issues, and produce a single statement of what they agree, what they do not, and why. Done well, the joint statement narrows the dispute to the points that genuinely turn on expert judgement. Done badly, it is where a defensible opinion drifts, concedes too much, or is exposed as resting on facts the expert can no longer locate.

What is the experts' joint statement?

Under Part 35.12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may direct that the experts of like discipline discuss the issues in the case and prepare a statement for the court. That statement sets out the issues on which the experts agree, the issues on which they disagree, and a short summary of the reasons for each disagreement. It is signed by both experts and it is disclosed.

The discussion that produces it is normally held on a without prejudice basis, so the give and take of the meeting stays private. The statement is the opposite: it is on the record, it is read by the court, and the expert can be cross-examined on every line of it. That asymmetry is the whole point. The discussion is a safe place to test positions; the statement is a public commitment to the ones that survive.

Why does the joint statement carry so much weight?

By the time the experts meet, the court already has two reports. What it does not yet have is a clear map of where the real disagreement lies, and that is what the joint statement supplies. A judge reading it should be able to see, at a glance, which questions are settled and which still need deciding. Everything marked agreed is, in practice, off the table; everything marked disagreed is where the case will be fought.

That makes the statement one of the highest-leverage documents an expert ever signs. An issue conceded here is rarely recovered later, and a disagreement recorded without a clear reason invites the conclusion that there was never much in it. The experts are not just reporting on their meeting. They are framing the questions the court will actually have to answer.

What does Part 35 require, and what does it forbid?

The rule and its accompanying guidance set the boundaries clearly. The experts must discuss the issues, reach agreement where they properly can, and identify and explain the points where they cannot. The content of the statement is for the experts alone.

The prohibitions matter as much as the duties. Instructing parties must not ask an expert to avoid reaching agreement on an issue within the expert's competence, and they must not seek to dictate the content of the statement. A solicitor may help to frame an agenda and may explain the legal questions in play, but the moment the instructions start steering the conclusion, the expert's independence, and with it the value of the statement, is gone. The overriding duty under Part 35.3 is to the court, and the joint statement is one of the clearest tests of whether that duty has been honoured.

How should an expert prepare for the discussion?

Preparation is what separates a discussion that sharpens the case from one that wanders. The work divides into three plain tasks, and none of them should be left to the meeting itself.

  • Reread the source material. Go back to the records, both reports and any agreed agenda, rather than relying on your memory of what the bundle said when you first wrote.
  • Settle your own position first. Decide, issue by issue, what you hold and the reason you hold it, so you arrive ready to state a view rather than to form one under pressure.
  • Anchor every key fact to its page. Make sure the dates and findings you intend to rely on can be opened and checked, so a challenge is answered with the record and not with a recollection.

The common thread is that nothing important should be reconstructed during the meeting. An expert who has to leaf through a bundle to find the date of a referral while the other expert waits is negotiating from a weaker position than the evidence justifies, and concessions made under that pressure are hard to undo once the statement is signed.

Why does a sourced chronology matter so much here?

Almost every disagreement in the discussion comes down to sequence: what was recorded, when, and what followed. That is exactly what a medical chronology makes visible, and it is why a chronology tied to its source pages is the single most useful thing an expert can bring to the meeting.

With the history in order and each entry traceable to the record, the discussion stays about substance. A contested date is settled by opening the page, not by trading recollections. A point of agreement is reached because both experts are looking at the same sourced sequence rather than two summaries that quietly diverge. And when the other expert relies on a fact that is not in the records, the absence is demonstrable rather than merely asserted.

An agreement built on a sourced chronology holds. One built on two experts' memories of the bundle is only as reliable as the weaker memory in the room.

The same applies in reverse. If your own position rests on a fact you cannot locate when challenged, you will either concede it or defend it weakly, and either way the statement records the result. Sourcing is what lets an expert hold a line under pressure, because the line is anchored to a page anyone can check.

What are the common mistakes in a joint statement?

The recurring errors are predictable. The first is agreeing too readily for the sake of a tidy meeting, conceding a point that turns out to matter because it felt churlish to hold it. The second is the opposite: recording a disagreement without a clear reason, which reads to the court as a difference of temperament rather than of expert opinion.

The third is drifting outside competence, agreeing or disagreeing on a question that belongs to another discipline or, worse, to the court. The fourth is letting the statement be shaped by the instructing party, whether through an over-engineered agenda or a comment that the expert quietly absorbs. Each of these is avoidable with preparation, and each is far harder to repair once the statement is signed and disclosed.

How does a sound joint statement support the expert's duty to the court?

The joint statement is where the duty under Part 35 is most visible. An expert who arrives prepared, holds the positions the evidence supports, concedes the ones it does not, and gives a clear reason for every disagreement is doing precisely what the rule asks: helping the court resolve the case on the substance. A statement that shows that working is also the one that holds up when the expert is cross-examined on it months later.

It is also the document that protects the expert. A position recorded with its reason, anchored to the records, is one the expert can stand behind without having to rebuild the argument from scratch. A position recorded loosely, without a source, is a hostage left for the other side to collect at trial.

Why it matters

The joint statement is where a well-built case is consolidated or quietly eroded, and the difference, again, is sourcing. That is the principle ALLDOQ is built on. It reads the whole record, assembles the chronology in one auditable file, and attaches the source page to every entry, so an expert walks into the discussion with the history already in order and every fact one click from the page it came from. The reasoning is settled in advance, the contested dates are answered with the record, and the statement that comes out of the meeting says what the expert can defend, which is exactly what a joint statement has to do.