Are experts' meetings without prejudice?

Yes. The discussion itself is without prejudice and cannot be referred to at trial unless the parties agree. The joint statement produced after the meeting is not without prejudice and will be disclosed to the court. The without-prejudice protection allows experts to speak frankly and narrow the issues without fear that their words will be used against the instructing party.

Can solicitors attend experts' meetings?

No. Under CrimPR Rule 19.6 and FPR Part 25.16, solicitors and barristers do not attend the experts' meeting. The experts meet alone — in person or by video conference — and produce the joint statement themselves. Solicitors may prepare a written agenda of issues for the experts to address, but they must not attempt to influence the content of the joint statement. Doing so is a serious breach of the Rules and may result in the evidence being excluded.

What happens if experts cannot agree at a joint meeting?

If the experts cannot agree on a matter, the joint statement must record the reasons for the disagreement. A well-reasoned disagreement is not a failure — it narrows the issues for the court and helps the judge understand the competing positions. The court will then determine the issue at trial, taking into account the experts' evidence and the reasons for their disagreement.

How do joint expert meetings work in family proceedings?

In family proceedings, the court may direct a meeting between experts under FPR Part 25.16. The meeting is without prejudice. The experts must produce a joint statement recording their areas of agreement and disagreement. In children cases, the joint statement is particularly important because it helps the court understand the extent of the dispute and may avoid the need for lengthy oral evidence at the final hearing.

What is the difference between a joint statement and a Scott Schedule?

A joint statement (also called a statement of agreement and disagreement) is produced after a without-prejudice experts' meeting and records the experts' agreed and disputed positions. A Scott Schedule is a tabular document used in some proceedings to set out the parties' competing positions on a series of issues — it is a case management tool rather than an expert witness document. In practice, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in criminal proceedings, but they are distinct documents.

Can an expert change their opinion after signing a joint statement?

Yes, but the expert must notify the instructing party immediately under CrimPR Rule 19.2(6) or FPR Part 25.3. The instructing party must then notify the court and all other parties. The expert may be required to produce a supplementary report explaining the change. A change of opinion after the joint statement has been served is a significant event that the court will scrutinise carefully.

How should a solicitor prepare an expert for a joint meeting?

The solicitor should provide the expert with the opposing expert's report, a written agenda of the issues to be addressed, and a clear explanation of the without-prejudice nature of the meeting. The solicitor must not coach the expert or attempt to influence the content of the joint statement. The expert should be reminded of their overriding duty to the court and the requirement to record both agreement and disagreement honestly.

Joint Expert Statements Under CPR Part 35

What Is a Joint Expert Statement?

Definition

A joint expert statement (also called a statement of agreement and disagreement) is a document produced by two or more expert witnesses after a without-prejudice discussion directed by the court. It records the matters on which the experts agree, the matters on which they disagree, and the reasons for any disagreement. In criminal proceedings it is governed by CrimPR Rule 19.6; in family proceedings by FPR Part 25.16. The statement is admissible in evidence and is served on the court and all parties.

The purpose of a joint expert statement is not to resolve the dispute between the parties — that remains for the court. Its purpose is to narrow the issues in dispute by identifying where the experts genuinely agree and where they genuinely disagree, so that the court's time at trial is focused on the real points of contention rather than matters that are not truly in issue. A well-drafted joint statement is one of the most effective tools for efficient case management in expert-heavy proceedings.

The without-prejudice nature of the discussion is critical to this process: it allows experts to speak frankly, to test each other's reasoning, and to narrow their differences without fear that their words will be used against the instructing party at trial. The joint statement itself, however, is not without prejudice — it is a formal document that will be before the court and will form part of the evidence.

Awareness Stage — Quick Answers

Procedural Rules: CrimPR 19.6 and FPR 25.16

Joint expert statements are governed by different procedural rules depending on the type of proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the relevant rule is CrimPR Rule 19.6; in family proceedings, it is FPR Part 25.16. Both frameworks share the same core principles — the without-prejudice discussion, the prohibition on solicitor attendance, and the requirement to record both agreement and disagreement — but there are important procedural differences that practitioners must understand.

CrimPR Rule 19.6

Joint Statements in Criminal Proceedings

Rule 19.6 governs the procedure for joint expert meetings and joint statements in criminal proceedings. Where experts for the prosecution and defence have been instructed on the same issue, the court may direct them to meet — without the presence of the parties or their legal representatives — and produce a joint statement. The statement must identify: (a) the issues on which the experts agree; (b) the issues on which they disagree; and (c) the reasons for any disagreement. It must be signed by both experts and served on the court and all parties. Solicitors must not attempt to influence the content of the joint statement.

Crown CourtMagistrates' CourtWithout PrejudiceSigned by Both Experts

FPR Part 25.16

Experts' Discussions in Family Proceedings

Without-Prejudice Protection

What Is and Is Not Protected

Prohibition on Solicitor Attendance

The Non-Attendance Rule and Its Limits

Agreement and Disagreement Schedule

Structure of the Joint Statement

Change of Opinion After the Statement

What Happens If an Expert Changes Their Mind

CrimPR 19.6 vs FPR 25.16 — Key Differences

The following table summarises the key differences between the joint expert statement procedures in criminal and family proceedings. Practitioners instructing experts in both types of proceedings should be aware of these distinctions, particularly the different practice directions and the different typical triggers for a joint meeting direction.

Aspect	Criminal Proceedings	Family Proceedings
Governing Rule	CrimPR Rule 19.6	FPR Part 25.16
Proceedings	Crown Court & Magistrates' Court	Family Court & Family Division
Direction Required	Court direction required	Court direction required
Solicitor Attendance	Prohibited	Prohibited
Without-Prejudice	Discussion only; statement admissible	Discussion only; statement admissible
Practice Direction	CrimPR Part 19 Practice Direction	PD 25E
Typical Trigger	Conflicting psychiatric / forensic reports	Conflicting parenting capacity or hair strand reports
Deadline	Set by court direction	Set by court direction (often pre-IRH)

Experts meeting agenda document alongside CrimPR Rule 19.6 with Areas of Disagreement sticky note

Preparing the Experts' Meeting Agenda

The written agenda is the solicitor's primary tool for ensuring that the experts' meeting addresses the issues the court needs resolved. A well-prepared agenda focuses the experts on the specific questions in dispute, avoids tangential discussion, and helps ensure that the joint statement is structured in a way that is useful to the court.

The agenda should be agreed between the instructing solicitors on both sides where possible, and should be served on the experts in advance of the meeting. It should be structured around the specific questions the court needs answered — not the parties' tactical positions. Agenda items that are framed in a way that pre-determines the answer, or that steer the expert toward a particular position, are improper and may be challenged.

In family proceedings, Practice Direction 25E provides detailed guidance on the preparation of the agenda and the conduct of experts' discussions. Solicitors instructing experts in family proceedings should read PD 25E carefully before preparing the agenda. In criminal proceedings, there is no equivalent practice direction, but the principles are the same: the agenda should be neutral, focused, and agreed where possible.

From Our Work — Non-Commodity Experience

What We See When Joint Meetings Go Wrong

The most common failure mode we encounter is not an expert who refuses to agree — it is an expert who agrees to more than they should because they feel social pressure from a more assertive opposing expert. In our experience managing joint expert meetings across criminal and family proceedings, the most effective preparation is not coaching the expert on what to say, but ensuring they understand that a well-reasoned disagreement is a legitimate and often necessary outcome. An expert who records a genuine disagreement clearly and with reasons is doing their job correctly. An expert who minimises disagreement to avoid conflict is failing the court.

We also regularly see joint statements that record disagreement without reasons — the experts simply note that they disagree on a point without explaining why. This is unhelpful to the court and will often attract judicial criticism. When we brief our experts before a joint meeting, we emphasise that the reasons for disagreement are as important as the disagreement itself, and that a joint statement that explains the competing reasoning is far more valuable than one that merely lists the points of contention.

How to Prepare for a Joint Expert Meeting

Step 1

Obtain and review the court direction

Confirm the court's direction for a joint expert meeting, including the deadline for the joint statement and the specific issues the experts are required to address. Check whether the direction specifies a particular format or requires the agenda to be agreed between solicitors.

Step 2

Serve the opposing expert's report on your expert

Ensure your expert has received the opposing expert's full report, any supplementary materials, and the relevant factual evidence. Your expert cannot engage meaningfully in the joint meeting without a thorough understanding of the opposing position.

Step 3

Prepare and agree the written agenda

Prepare a written agenda of the issues to be addressed, agreed with the opposing solicitor where possible. Structure the agenda around the specific questions the court needs answered. Do not frame agenda items in a way that pre-determines the answer or steers the expert toward a particular position.

Step 4

Brief the expert on process and boundaries

Remind the expert of their overriding duty to the court, the without-prejudice nature of the discussion, and the prohibition on solicitor attendance. Make clear that the joint statement must honestly record both agreement and disagreement, and that any attempt to minimise disagreement artificially will be scrutinised by the court.

Step 5

Review, sign, and serve the joint statement

Review the joint statement for completeness and compliance with the court's direction. Ensure it is signed by both experts. Serve it on the court and all parties within the directed timetable. If your expert has changed their opinion as a result of the meeting, notify the court and all parties immediately under Rule 19.2(6) or FPR Part 25.3.

Related Subtopics

Without-Prejudice Rule

The legal principle that protects the content of experts' discussions from disclosure at trial, allowing frank exchange without tactical risk to the instructing party.

Agreement and Disagreement Schedule

The structured format of a joint statement, recording the issues on which experts agree, the issues on which they disagree, and the reasons for any disagreement.

Scott Schedule

A tabular case management document sometimes used interchangeably with 'joint statement' in criminal proceedings, setting out competing expert positions on a series of issues.

Overriding Duty to the Court

The fundamental obligation under CrimPR Rule 19.2 and FPR Part 25.3 that an expert's primary duty is to assist the court impartially, overriding any duty to the instructing party.

Letter of Instruction

The document sent by the instructing solicitor to the expert setting out the facts, the specific questions to be addressed, and the court timetable — including any direction for a joint meeting.

Practice Direction 25E

The Family Procedure Rules practice direction that provides detailed guidance on the conduct of experts' discussions in family proceedings, including the agenda and joint statement format.

Experts' Meeting Agenda

A written list of issues prepared by the instructing solicitors (agreed where possible) for the experts to address at their without-prejudice meeting.

Range of Opinion

Where there is a body of expert opinion on a matter, the joint statement should record the range of views and the position of each expert within that range, not merely a binary agree/disagree.