Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

The judgment makes it much clearer, albeit I've only skim read due to curiosity as the article made it all sound a bit odd.

HHJ Males was not criticising them for not agreeing everything or for not reaching a compromise; he was criticising the experts for not undertaking the expert meeting process properly.

Para 11 of the judgment: "There is then a statement, item by item, of the opinion of the defendant's expert on this issue, Mr. Nuri Kilic to which Professor Kilgallon on every occasion gave this response:
"Professor Kilgallon is considering his response. He is due to serve a supplemental report by 21st December 2018 by when he anticipates he will have formed a settled view as to whether he agrees or disagrees with Mr. Kilic on this point.""

So in a nutshell, they had a totally pointless meeting in which they both said they stood by their reports, and rather than seeing whether there were *any* issues they could agree on in order to narrow the issues, one expert just said I'll think about this later in response to every single point.

Your details

Cancel