The use of concurrent evidence or 'hot tubbing' in Australian courts is increasing, with over 70 cases employing the process in 2012. Given this increase in use there has been much debate regarding the merits and potential drawbacks of the process.
In the recent case of Visy Packaging Pty Ltd v Siegwerk Australia Pty Ltd1, Justice Gray made some interesting observations about its use. He stated:
"The process of taking expert evidence was a great deal more satisfactory than the traditional method of having the expert witnesses called separately and be examined, cross-examined and re-examined."
Justice Gray listed the following further benefits:
- The experts were able to debate, with few interruptions, all the issues in their joint report in sequence.
- Counsel were able to ask questions of the experts following their final statements, and questioning was directed at the substance and resolution of issues.
- There was no questioning of the tactical kind intended to discredit or damage the reputation of either witness.
- The process saved both time and money.
Justice Gray's views are broadly in line with our experience which we discussed in our recent article, Some like it hot! Expert views on judicial orders to hear expert evidence concurrently. The article reflected on the personal experience of KordaMentha Forensic partners who have given evidence concurrently in a range of jurisdictions.
Footnotes
1Visy Packaging Pty Ltd v Siegwerk Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 231 (19 March 2013)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.