 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Many respondents
proposed (as had been suggested by Lord Woolf and in the
Interim Report) that SJE orders should only be made where the relevant issues require
expert evidence but are essentially straightforward and unlikely to provoke
controversy.
Some also suggested
that SJE orders might appropriately be made in "low-value"
disputes, presumably on the footing that incurring two sets of expert costs would be
disproportionate in such cases in any event, making it easier to accept the desirability
of a SJE.
The AE's view was on similar lines. Summarising the experience in England and
Wales, it stated :-
"The most likely appropriate case for the appointment of an SJE is a low value and/or low
complexity case where it is in any event possible that the expert will not need to be called at
all and his report should be accepted as written evidence without the need for cross-
examination. In these cases the use of the SJE has been largely successful."
Notes
Including the Bar Association, the Law Society, the LAD, the HKMLA, the HA (which favoured
SJEs in relation to disputes on quantum), the JCGWG and the Hon Ms Miriam Lau speaking in
Legco.
Among others, by the LAD, the HKMLA, the SCLHK, the HA, the JCGWG, the Hon Ms Miriam
Lau speaking in Legco, a solicitors' firm and an individual respondent.
In England and Wales, the Woolf Network 4th survey showed that some 82% of the respondents
thought single joint experts appropriate for smaller cases on the "fast track" but only 54% thought
them appropriate for larger, "multi-track" cases.
|
 |
|