Ask the judgesMore readers' civil procedure questions are put to our panel of district judges - and more answers

Q Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) rule 35.4 empowers the court to limit the amount of an expert's fees and expenses which the party who wished to rely on the expert may recover from the other party.

If the expert's fees or expenses are reduced on assessment, who bears the loss?

A If an order has been made limiting the amount recoverable, this will cap the amount allowed on assessment.

The costs judge cannot allow more but he may allow less.

This relates to the amount payable by the paying party to the receiving party.

How much the receiving party has to pay to the expert is entirely dependent on the contract between them and normal contractual considerations apply.

A difficulty arises when the reason for the reduction on the assessment would also be a reason (in contractual terms) for reducing the amount sought to be charged by the expert to the client.

Where such an objection is taken by the paying party in the assessment proceedings, it is prudent to invite the expert to write or even attend the assessment hearing to justify his fee with a view to reducing the risk of a dispute between expert and client which has to be litigated in other proceedings.

Q Who should sign a statement of truth where (otherwise than in a group action) there is more than one claimant or defendant? CPR rule 22.1(8) says two parties may sign jointly where this is permitted by a practice direction but I cannot see that there is any practice direction on the point.

The position may become more complicated if, say, two claimants can verify different facts but neither can verify them all.

A Each party can sign his own statement of truth and if each can speak to some only of the facts, that should be made clear in his statement (although it is implicit that he is required merely to assert his belief in what is said and not his personal knowledge of everything).

Alternatively, the statement of truth can be made by you under PD22 para 3.7 and you would be signing by reference to your clients' respective beliefs and not your own.

However, you must be able to comply with the obligations imposed on you by PD22 para 3.8 (you have the clients' authorities to sign and before signing you explained to the clients that in signing you would be confirming their beliefs that the facts stated were true.

And you informed the clients of the possible consequences if it should subsequently appear that they did not have an honest belief in the facts).

It may be thought that a solicitor, who is prepared to state that his client holds a particular belief, is a brave solicitor and that in signing a statement of truth he is following a perilous course.

Readers' questions for the judges may be e-mailed to: kim.davies@lawsociety.org.ukThe answers are the view of our panel and should not be considered binding on any court