Expert-to-expert meetings are one of the most underused tools in construction and infrastructure arbitration, and also one of the most misunderstood. Handled well, they narrow a dispute to its genuine points of technical disagreement and save a tribunal — and the parties' budgets — considerable time. Handled badly, or avoided altogether, they leave a hearing to relitigate ground that could have been resolved on paper. This piece looks at how meetings of experts should be approached, and what a defensible joint statement looks like.
Why tribunals increasingly expect this step
Whether ordered directly by the tribunal or raised as a matter the expert should proactively discuss with instructing counsel, meetings between opposing experts serve a straightforward purpose: to identify what is genuinely agreed, what remains in dispute, and why. This is not a negotiation between advocates. It is a technical conversation between professionals whose overriding duty runs to the tribunal, aimed at giving that tribunal a clear, honest map of where expert opinion actually diverges.
DIAC-administered tribunals, the DIFC Courts, and arbitrateAD proceedings alike increasingly expect this kind of structured expert conferencing on complex delay, quantum, and technical disputes, reflecting a broader international arbitration practice under which unresolved joint statements at the hearing stage are viewed unfavourably — both by tribunals managing their own time, and as a signal that the experts involved may not have engaged with the process in good faith.
Preparing for the meeting
An expert who arrives at a joint meeting without genuine preparation — intending simply to restate their own report and see what happens — undermines the exercise before it begins. Effective preparation involves:
- Reviewing the opposing expert's report closely enough to identify, in advance, the specific points of methodology, assumption, or interpretation where the two opinions diverge, rather than where they simply reach different headline figures
- Distinguishing genuine technical disagreement from disagreement that actually rests on different underlying instructions or assumptions — the latter is not something the experts can resolve between themselves, and should be identified as such
- Being genuinely open to the possibility that some points can be conceded or narrowed, where the opposing expert's position is, on reflection, better supported by the evidence
That last point is where independence is tested most directly. An expert who treats every meeting as an opportunity to hold the line on every point, regardless of the strength of the opposing view, is not engaging in a genuine technical exchange — and tribunals reviewing the resulting joint statement can usually tell the difference between a document that reflects real engagement and one that simply records two unmoved positions side by side.
What the meeting should not become
Meetings between experts must remain a technical exchange, not a negotiation conducted on behalf of the parties. A few boundaries matter here:
- Experts should not attend meetings that are not genuinely joint — meeting privately with only one side present, outside an arrangement all parties or the tribunal have agreed to, compromises the integrity of the process
- Positions should not be adjusted for tactical or commercial reasons unconnected to the underlying technical merits
- Instructing lawyers should not attempt to script or closely manage what an expert concedes in the meeting — doing so defeats the purpose of the exercise and, if it becomes apparent to the tribunal, damages the credibility of both the process and the expert
Producing the joint statement
The output of the meeting — typically a joint statement identifying agreed facts and issues, and separately identifying disputed facts and issues along with the reasons for disagreement — is one of the most valuable documents a tribunal receives in a construction dispute. A well-prepared joint statement should:
- Record points of genuine agreement clearly and without hedging, so the tribunal can treat them as settled and focus hearing time elsewhere
- Where disagreement remains, state the reason for it precisely — whether it stems from differing methodology, differing factual assumptions, or a genuine difference of professional judgment applied to the same facts
- Avoid restating each expert's full report by way of summary; the value of the document lies in its precision about what remains contested, not in its comprehensiveness
Where an order for a joint meeting cannot be complied with
Occasionally logistical, access, or scheduling constraints — not uncommon on large GCC infrastructure programmes where multiple project stakeholders and site access requirements are involved — make it genuinely difficult to comply with a tribunal's direction for a joint meeting within the timetable set. Where this arises, the correct response is to prepare a written record of the reason for non-compliance and provide it to both the client and the tribunal promptly, rather than allowing the direction to lapse without explanation.
Why this stage rewards genuine rigour
A joint statement that meaningfully narrows the issues in dispute is, in a very real sense, evidence of the expert's own professional discipline. It demonstrates that the opinions in the underlying report were reached independently and are held with appropriate confidence — confident enough to be defended where the evidence supports them, and flexible enough to be revised where, on reflection, it does not.
Part 12 turns to a related but distinct mechanism: the single joint expert, or tribunal-appointed expert, and the circumstances in which this approach is used instead of party-appointed experts.