 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The fifth measure canvassed was aimed at supporting the independence of experts by
permitting them to approach the court for directions in their own names and capacity
without notice to the parties, but at the parties' expense. This met cogent objections,
including the argument that it is likely to inject distrust between parties and their
experts through use of an undesirably non-transparent procedure which was likely to
erode legal professional privilege. Many consultees also suggested that such a power
is unlikely to be used, it being much more plausible that an expert would ask his client
to seek directions if any question regarding his own role arose.
The Working Party recognizes that the appointment of single joint experts may be
beneficial only in certain cases and may be counter-productive in others. It
recommends that the court should have power to order the parties to appoint a single
joint expert upon application by at least one of the parties, subject to the court being
satisfied, having taken into account specified guidelines, that the other party's refusal
to agree to a single joint expert is unreasonable in the circumstances.
|
 |
|