Court reports · evidence & investigation work
A report for court is not a case put with pictures attached. The civil rules are blunt: the expert owes the court a duty that comes above any duty to the client footing the bill, and a report that ignores that helps nobody. Ours is written on that footing.
Speak to us in confidence
0800 6890668
| Report type | Where it's used | What's in it |
|---|---|---|
| Findings report | In-house decisions, HR matters, early guidance | Findings, how they were reached, plain-English conclusions |
| Loss and insurance report | Questions of claim, quantum and cause | The findings, an analysis of cause, and exhibits to back it |
| Report under CPR Part 35 | Civil proceedings in England and Wales | The duty owed to the court, a full method, a summary of instructions, and statements of truth and compliance |
| Report under CrimPR Part 19 | Criminal cases | The same, written to the criminal rules — reliability information, qualifications and credibility disclosure |
| Single joint expert | When the court orders one expert to serve both parties | One report, owed to each party and to the court alike |
Every instruction opens with a private discussion: the events so far, the devices and accounts involved, and the question the evidence has to settle. Before any examination is carried out you get one fixed quote in writing — and that first scoping stage is free.
What we are asked to do is logged and set out in the report. Anything touching credibility — that this is an independent lab holding no accreditation, for one — is declared before any analysis begins.
Work is done, and written down, as though an opposing expert were looking over our shoulder — which in the end they will be. The result does not shift with the party instructing.
Drafting follows CrimPR Part 19 or CPR Part 35 — method, exhibits, the custody chain, and the statements of truth and of compliance — with plain English sitting above the technical appendix.
What comes back to you is the full set — the report, its exhibits, the underlying files — along with hashes, continuity logs and the notes we made as we worked. Should another expert or a tribunal later probe it, every step can be retraced.
One disclosure rule to know before you appoint anybody: from April 2019 the criminal procedure directions have obliged parties to reveal anything that could undermine an expert's reliability, and absence of accreditation is named there in terms. An expert who hides it puts your case on soft ground. Ours sits on the first page.
One deleted folder, two companies, two competing accounts. The disk image backed neither party's preferred version, and the timeline set that out plainly. The dispute settled a month after the report changed hands.
A findings report sets out what turned up and by what means. A court report goes further: the overriding duty owed to the court, declarations of compliance and statements of truth, a summary of instructions, the full method, chain of custody — plus disclosure of anything that bears on credibility.
In formal terms, the court comes first. An expert's duty to help it outranks anything owed to whoever instructs or pays — and that is exactly why a compliant report carries weight.
Yes — if the court appoints one joint expert, our report goes to each side on the same terms, which usually focuses minds all round.
Disclosure is required, so it gets disclosed, and then it is judged next to the method — which is what really decides a report's fate. Experts come unstuck by claiming too much; we don't.
Loops write over themselves, traces fade, deadlines run out. Start a case early — scoping it costs nothing and stays confidential.