The Single Joint Expert in Abuse Claims: Managing Questions Under CPR 35.6

In complex abuse injury claims, the appointment of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) is a common procedural step intended to promote the overriding objective of the court. When the court exercises its power under CPR 35.7 to direct that expert evidence be given by one expert, the parties must adhere to CPR 35.8 regarding the instruction of that expert. By using one expert to address issues—such as the causation of psychiatric injury or prognosis—the parties seek to manage costs and ensure a unified clinical perspective on the claimant’s presentation. However, the efficacy of this process depends on the solicitor’s ability to navigate the mechanism of written questions afforded by CPR 35.6.

The Procedural Framework for Written Questions

Under CPR 35.6, a party may put written questions to an expert instructed by more than one party. These questions must be for the purpose of clarification only. This process is distinct from the adversarial testing of evidence; it serves as a mechanism to ensure the expert’s conclusions are fully understood by the parties, rather than a vehicle for introducing new lines of enquiry or attempting to force an expert to adopt a partisan position.

The challenge for solicitors lies in framing questions that respect the expert’s clinical independence. Questions must be:

• Proportionate to the issues in the case.
• Limited to the clarification of the expert’s report.
• Submitted within 28 days of service of the report, unless otherwise agreed or directed by the court.

Clinical Context in Abuse Injury Litigation

The medico-legal assessment of abuse survivors requires a nuanced understanding of diagnostic frameworks, including those for Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD). When an SJE is appointed, they are often tasked with addressing interpersonal trauma, attachment disruption, and the cumulative impact of institutional safeguarding failures.

Solicitors should approach CPR 35.6 questions with a focus on whether the expert has addressed the “but-for” analysis of causation. If the clinical reasoning appears to overlook a potential contributor, or if the report lacks clarity on the interaction between pre-existing vulnerabilities and the traumatic injury, a request for clarification may be appropriate. If the expert’s methodology is fundamentally challenged, the issue may be more suited to an application for a supplementary report or, in cases where the court grants permission, the appointment of a separate expert.

Effective Management of Expert Evidence

Solicitors should avoid using the written question process to re-litigate clinical disagreements. Instead, focus questions on the reasoning process employed within the report. Key areas where clarification is often relevant include:

• Where the expert’s opinion on the threshold of injury remains ambiguous.
• Where the expert has not clearly distinguished between the impact of historic trauma and subsequent institutional stressors.
• Where the prognosis section requires elaboration regarding the claimant’s specific treatment or care requirements.
• Where there is a conflict between the expert’s clinical findings and the agreed factual matrix, asking the expert to comment on the potential impact of those facts on their opinion.

Abuse injury claims frequently involve overlapping clinical issues. Whether the claim concerns developmental trauma or late-onset CPTSD, the choice of expert should align with these specific needs. Instructing parties must ensure the SJE has access to the full spectrum of relevant records, including social services files and historical educational records, to ensure the clinical narrative is robust. A, process for clarifying complex issues can be an iterative one, and where a response to written questions remains unclear, parties may consider a request for a supplementary report, provided such a step remains proportionate.

Effective management of SJE evidence requires maintaining a professional, neutral tone in all correspondence, ensuring the independence of the expert’s opinion remains the central focus. Trauma-informed medico-legal assessment is pivotal, particularly where complex trauma presentations, limitation issues under the Limitation Act 1980, or multi-disciplinary evidentiary requirements are in play.