A joint meeting of experts in financial proceedings is a without-prejudice discussion between the forensic accountants instructed by each party, directed by the court under CPR 35.12, with the purpose of identifying areas of agreement and narrowing the issues in dispute before trial. The output is a joint statement signed by both experts, which forms part of the evidence before the court.
- What is the purpose of a joint meeting of experts in financial proceedings?
- Who attends the joint meeting and what are the rules?
- What we see in practice: why joint meetings succeed and why they fail
- What issues should be on the agenda of a forensic accountant joint meeting?
- What is a joint statement and how is it produced after the meeting?
- What happens if the experts cannot reach agreement at the joint meeting?
What is the purpose of a joint meeting of experts in financial proceedings?
The purpose of a joint meeting of experts under CPR 35.12 is to reduce the contested expert issues to their irreducible minimum before trial. Courts direct joint meetings because unresolved expert disagreement adds time and cost to proceedings: if two forensic accountants can agree on methodology, on the factual basis of their analysis, and on a significant portion of the figures, the remaining contested issues can be addressed in far less time at trial.
The joint meeting serves three functions. First, it identifies the issues on which the experts actually agree, which are often more numerous than the parties expect. In financial proceedings involving business valuation, the experts may agree on the appropriate methodology but differ on specific inputs such as the maintainable earnings figure or the appropriate capitalisation rate. Having those areas of agreement confirmed in a joint statement narrows the cross-examination to the genuinely disputed inputs. Second, it allows the experts to test each other's reasoning in a structured environment where the adversarial constraints of the courtroom do not apply. An expert who has made an error is more likely to acknowledge it in a professional discussion with a peer than under cross-examination. Third, it produces the joint statement, which is a document addressed to the court that judges find among the most useful pieces of expert evidence in financial proceedings.
In matrimonial finance, the joint meeting of forensic accountants is particularly valuable because it often resolves valuation disputes that would otherwise occupy significant court time. A case in which the parties' experts begin with a business valuation gap of £3 million frequently reaches a gap of £500,000 after a well-conducted joint meeting, bringing the case within range of settlement. For background on how the forensic accountant's role fits into the broader expert witness framework, see our article on the forensic accountant as expert witness.
Who attends the joint meeting and what are the rules?
The forensic accountant experts appointed by each party attend the joint meeting. Solicitors and counsel do not attend. This is one of the most important procedural rules governing joint meetings: the experts meet without their clients or legal representatives and are required to conduct the discussion as independent professionals, not as advocates for their respective instructing parties.
CPR 35.12 states that the court may direct a discussion between experts and may specify the issues to be discussed. The Practice Direction to Part 35 makes clear that the purpose of the discussion is for the experts to identify and discuss the expert issues and, where possible, to reach agreement on those issues. It also states specifically that the content of the discussion between experts must not be referred to at trial unless the parties agree. This is the without-prejudice character of the joint meeting: experts can speak freely without their words being used against the instructing party at trial.
Solicitors play an important role before and after the joint meeting but not during it. Before the meeting, solicitors agree the agenda with their opposing number and send it to their expert. After the meeting, the experts produce a draft joint statement that is reviewed by the solicitors for accuracy only: not for substance. The rule that solicitors must not seek to influence the substance of the experts' discussion is firm and is reinforced by case law. In Hubbard v Lambeth [2001], the court confirmed that solicitors who attempt to coach or influence the expert on the substance of the joint statement risk the court drawing adverse inferences or making costs orders against them.
In practice, joint meetings in forensic accounting cases are typically conducted by video conference, particularly for London-based cases involving financial remedy or commercial litigation. Face-to-face meetings are used where the document volume is such that working through calculations together on screen is impractical. The experts themselves agree the format once the court has given the direction: there is no prescribed method.
What we see in practice: why joint meetings succeed and why they fail
From over 150 instructions as a forensic accountant expert witness in England and Wales, I have participated in a significant number of joint meetings under CPR 35.12. The meetings that produce useful, specific joint statements and contribute to resolution share common features. The meetings that produce inconclusive joint statements, or joint statements that simply restate each expert's prior position, also share common features. The difference almost always lies in the quality of the agenda.
A well-prepared agenda identifies each issue on which the experts' reports differ and frames each issue as a specific question requiring a yes or no answer, a specific figure, or a choice between defined alternatives. For example: do the experts agree that the maintainable earnings of the business for the purposes of a capitalisation of earnings valuation should be based on the three-year average to the accounting date? That question can be answered definitively. If the experts agree, the joint statement records that agreement and the court time on that issue is saved. If they do not agree, the joint statement records each expert's position and the specific reason for the disagreement, and the issue is identified as remaining in dispute for trial.
A poorly prepared agenda fails in a specific way that I have observed repeatedly. It frames issues at a level of generality that prevents the experts from reaching specific conclusions. An agenda item that says simply discuss the valuation methodology creates a conversation but not a resolution. The experts can discuss methodology at length and still produce a joint statement that says the experts were unable to agree on the appropriate approach. That outcome adds nothing to what was already known from reading the two reports. It does not help the court, it does not narrow the issues, and it extends the proceedings unnecessarily.
The consequences of poorly prepared agendas are concrete. I have seen cases where an inconclusive joint meeting resulted in both experts being called to give oral evidence on issues that a well-conducted meeting would have resolved without court time. One case involving a disputed business valuation in matrimonial finance proceedings had a joint meeting that ran for three hours without producing any agreed figure on any of the five questions in the agenda, because every question had been framed too broadly to permit a binary answer. The subsequent trial on those issues took two court days that a focused joint meeting would have reduced to a few hours. The wasted costs were significant for both parties.
A second failure pattern is lack of preparation by one expert. Joint meetings are most productive when both experts have read each other's reports carefully, have identified the specific figures and methodological choices they wish to discuss, and come to the meeting ready to engage with the other's reasoning. Where one expert has not prepared adequately, the meeting becomes one-sided: the prepared expert explains their analysis, the unprepared expert responds defensively, and productive engagement does not occur. Solicitors should confirm with their expert that they have reviewed the opposing report before the meeting date.
The most productive joint meetings I have participated in are those where the agenda has been drafted with input from both experts, not just by the solicitors. When the experts have a hand in designing the agenda, the questions are framed at the right level of specificity and address the actual methodological differences rather than abstract principles. Solicitors who share draft agendas with their expert before agreeing them with opposing solicitors produce better outcomes for their clients.
What issues should be on the agenda of a forensic accountant joint meeting?
The agenda for a joint meeting of forensic accountants should be structured around the specific disagreements identified by reading the two expert reports, not around the general topics of forensic accounting. A generic agenda covering valuation, loss, methodology, and documents is less effective than an agenda that says: the experts should discuss and seek to agree on the following ten specific questions, and each question should identify the page and paragraph of each report where the disagreement arises.
For a business valuation in matrimonial finance proceedings, the agenda should typically address: the appropriate valuation methodology or methodologies to be applied; the maintainable earnings figure and the specific adjustments each expert has made to reported earnings; the capitalisation rate or price-to-earnings multiple applied and the basis for selecting it; whether minority discount or control premium is appropriate and at what percentage; and the value of any identifiable intangible assets or goodwill. Each of these is a discrete question that can in principle be agreed or narrowed even if full agreement is not reached.
For a loss quantification matter such as a business interruption claim, the agenda should address: the agreed turnover of the business in the comparable period; any trend adjustment and the basis for it; the gross profit margin applicable to the lost turnover; the indemnity period and its start and end dates; and the quantum of any increased costs of working claimed. For business interruption cases, these are the five issues that determine the quantum outcome and that most frequently separate the parties' reports.
For POCA confiscation proceedings and HMRC investigations, the agenda will be shaped by the specific criminal benefit calculation in dispute. The key issues are typically: the basis period for the benefit calculation; the specific transactions alleged to constitute benefit and whether they are correctly characterised; the available amount and any arguable hidden assets; and any errors in the prosecution schedule that have been identified in the defence expert's report. See our service pages on POCA confiscation and HMRC investigations for how forensic accountant instructions in those areas are typically structured.
What is a joint statement and how is it produced after the meeting?
A joint statement is the document produced by the two forensic accountants after their joint meeting, addressed to the court, setting out the issues they have agreed and the issues that remain in dispute. It is not a transcript of the meeting. It is a structured, professional document that presents the agreed and disagreed positions in a form the court can use directly at trial.
The joint statement is typically drafted by one expert, reviewed by the other, and finalised by agreement between them. Solicitors may see the draft and check it for factual accuracy, but as noted above, they may not seek to influence the substance of what the experts have agreed or disagreed. A joint statement that has been shaped by solicitor intervention on substance risks being challenged and may result in the court requiring a fresh meeting.
A well-structured joint statement contains: a preamble identifying the experts, their instructions, and the date of the meeting; a list of the issues agreed, with the agreed position on each expressed in specific terms; a list of the issues remaining in dispute, with each expert's position set out in parallel columns and the specific reason for the disagreement explained; and signatures from both experts confirming that the joint statement accurately records the outcome of the discussion.
Courts use the joint statement in two ways at trial. First, to confirm the agreed issues, which the judge need not hear evidence about. Second, to identify the contested issues that require oral evidence and cross-examination. A joint statement that narrows the contested issues to two or three specific questions reduces a two-day trial to a half-day hearing. A joint statement that records disagreement on everything adds no value to the pre-trial process and does not justify the cost of the joint meeting that produced it.
What happens if the experts cannot reach agreement at the joint meeting?
Where the experts cannot agree at the joint meeting, the joint statement records each expert's position and the reason for the disagreement. The court then determines the contested expert issues at trial, having heard oral evidence from each expert and any cross-examination on the specific points of disagreement.
Failure to agree at the joint meeting does not mean the meeting has failed. Partial agreement is valuable: if the experts agree on three of five issues, the trial is shorter and the costs of addressing those issues are saved. The remaining two issues are addressed at trial with the benefit of the joint statement that has already identified and clarified the nature of the disagreement.
Where an expert refuses to attend the joint meeting without good reason, the court can draw adverse inferences and may make costs orders against the instructing party. Courts take seriously the obligation on experts to engage with the joint meeting process: it is a court direction, not an optional step. Where one expert is genuinely unavailable on the directed date, the meeting should be rescheduled rather than abandoned. A request to vacate the direction entirely should only be made in exceptional circumstances and with good reason.
The court itself does not attend the joint meeting and does not receive a transcript of it. The without-prejudice character of the discussion is important: it allows experts to explore positions and make provisional concessions in the meeting without those explorations being used as admissions at trial. What is recorded in the joint statement, by contrast, is on the record and forms part of the evidence. Experts should be careful to distinguish between exploratory positions taken during the discussion and the agreed or disagreed conclusions recorded in the joint statement.
Frequently asked questions
Can solicitors attend the joint meeting?
No. The joint meeting of experts under CPR 35.12 is conducted by the experts without solicitors or counsel present. Solicitors' role is to agree the agenda before the meeting and to review the draft joint statement for factual accuracy after it. Any attempt by solicitors to attend the meeting, or to instruct their expert on what to say or concede during it, is a breach of the procedural rules and risks adverse cost consequences. The without-prejudice and solicitor-free character of the meeting is fundamental to its purpose.
How long does a joint meeting take?
Joint meetings in forensic accounting cases typically last between two and five hours, depending on the number of issues and the complexity of the figures. A focused meeting with a well-prepared agenda addressing five or six specific questions can often produce a useful joint statement in two to three hours. A meeting with a broad, poorly defined agenda may run longer without producing useful conclusions. Experts should agree a realistic time estimate with the opposing expert before the meeting and structure the agenda to fit within it, prioritising the most important issues first.
Is the joint meeting without prejudice?
Yes. CPR 35.12 and PD35 confirm that the content of the experts' discussion is without prejudice and cannot be referred to at trial unless the parties agree. This protection applies to the discussion itself, not to the joint statement, which is on the record and forms part of the evidence. Experts can therefore explore positions and make provisional agreements during the meeting without those explorations being used against the instructing party. What is recorded in the signed joint statement is final and will be seen by the court.
Can experts change their opinion after the joint meeting?
Experts can update or revise their opinion after the joint meeting only with the court's permission. Where new information comes to light, or where the expert has genuinely changed their view following the substantive discussion with the opposing expert, a written update to the court is required. An expert who simply changes their position after the joint meeting without explanation, particularly in a way that withdraws from a concession made in the joint statement, is acting improperly. The joint statement is addressed to the court and represents both experts' considered professional positions at the time of signing.
What if one expert refuses to attend the joint meeting?
An expert who refuses to attend a court-directed joint meeting without good reason exposes their instructing party to a costs order and risks adverse inferences being drawn at trial. Courts take seriously the obligation to participate in the joint meeting process. Where an expert is genuinely unable to attend on the directed date, the meeting should be rescheduled by agreement between the solicitors. An expert who is unwilling to engage with the joint meeting process at all, or who attends but refuses to engage substantively with the opposing expert's analysis, will face rigorous questioning at trial about why they declined to identify areas of agreement.
A well-conducted joint meeting of forensic accountants under CPR 35.12, with a specific agenda and adequately prepared experts, consistently narrows the contested issues in financial proceedings and reduces trial time and cost. From 150+ instructions, the single clearest predictor of a productive joint meeting is the quality of the agenda: specific, issue-by-issue questions framed at a level of detail that permits binary answers. Broadly drafted agendas produce broadly drafted joint statements that add no value to the proceedings. Solicitors who involve their forensic accounting expert in the agenda-drafting process produce better outcomes for their clients and more useful expert evidence for the court.
To discuss how Key Ledgers approaches joint meetings and joint statements in your proceedings, contact us at Key Ledgers enquiry page or call 020 8907 9218.
Author: Bharat Varsani FCCA, CPR Part 35 qualified forensic accountant expert witness, 150+ instructions in England and Wales.