What must happen if a single expert is appointed in legal proceedings?

When a single expert is appointed in legal proceedings, the guiding principle is that the parties are restricted from engaging another expert on related issues without obtaining permission from the court, which aligns with the rationale behind appointing a single expert. This mechanism is designed to streamline the expert evidence process, minimize conflicting opinions, and reduce litigation costs.

In this context, allowing parties to consult their own experts or engage additional experts could lead to confusion, inconsistencies, and increased legal complexity. The single expert's role is to provide an impartial and comprehensive assessment of the matter at hand, thus ensuring that the court receives clear and cohesive expert evidence. This structure emphasizes the importance of maintaining a focused and efficient approach to expert testimony within litigation processes.

Other options would not necessarily align with the procedural rules and best practices established in New South Wales Civil Practice. For example, independent consultations with other experts could undermine the purpose of having a single expert and could be problematic in terms of how evidence is presented in court. Similarly, requiring all experts to agree with the single expert's findings is unrealistic, as expert opinions are often inherently diverse; the court aims for a balanced view rather than consensus. Discussing findings with the judge could compromise the impartiality expected from an expert in the court's