Judicial principles and studies
Expert Evidence and Inspection: Large Discrepancy Standard and the Need for a Third Expert
The points set out the judicial standard for identifying a large discrepancy between expert reports and when a third expert is required, noting that the number of experts alone may be insufficient to resolve the issue.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The points address the interplay between expert evidence and inspection, and when a third expert is required where a large discrepancy appears between two expert reports, whether before the same court or between trial and appellate levels. Case number cited in the points: Distinction of Public Body Rights No. (3893-2025).
Summary
- A third expert is required when a substantial discrepancy exists between two expert reports before the same court or across judicial instances, to reach a fair assessment. - The sheer number of experts cannot by itself establish the absence of a large discrepancy, particularly where estimates differ markedly without justification while their bases and elements are similar. - The operative criterion for absence of a large discrepancy is the convergence (fading difference) between the last two expert reports, regardless of how many expertises were conducted. This is an educational general summary, not a judicial text and not legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.