Expert reports · investigations and evidence
An expert report is not your argument dressed up with exhibits. The civil rules place the expert's overriding duty with the court rather than with whoever instructs or pays, and a report drafted any other way is worthless the moment it's tested. Every report from this lab starts from that rule.
A quiet word, in confidence
0800 6890668
| Format | Setting | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Technical findings report | Internal decisions, HR processes, first advice | What we found, the method, and conclusions in ordinary language |
| Insurance & loss report | Claims — cause, extent and liability questions | Findings plus causation analysis, exhibited |
| CPR Part 35 report | England & Wales civil litigation | Court duty stated, instructions summarised, method in full, truth and compliance declarations signed |
| CrimPR Part 19 report | Criminal proceedings | The Part 35 contents, built to the criminal rules: reliability material, qualifications, credibility disclosure |
| Single joint expert | Both sides directed by the court to share one expert | A single report serving both parties equally, and the court above them |
Each new instruction starts with a confidential conversation — what has happened, which devices and accounts matter, and what the evidence needs to prove. You then receive a single written quote, fixed before any examination begins, and that opening scoping work costs nothing.
The instructions we receive are recorded, and the report itself summarises them. Whatever could bear on credibility — including that we're an independent, unaccredited lab — is stated before analysis starts, not discovered later.
Every step is performed and noted as if the other side's expert were already reading over our shoulder — because eventually they will be. Findings don't bend to the instructing party.
The report follows CPR Part 35 or CrimPR Part 19 as the matter requires: method, exhibits, the custody chain, statements of truth and compliance — plain-English conclusions first, technical appendix behind.
You receive everything: report, exhibits and the files behind them, plus the hashes, the continuity record and our working notes. If a tribunal or another expert wants to test it later, they can walk the whole trail step by step.
Check one thing before appointing any expert: since April 2019 the criminal practice directions have required disclosure of whatever could undermine an expert's reliability — missing accreditation expressly among it. An expert who buries that exposes your case. We print ours on page one.
Two firms, one missing folder, and two stories that didn't agree. The image supported neither side's telling outright; the timeline said so in plain terms. Within a month of the report being served, the matter settled.
A findings report describes what was found and the method used. A report for court carries more weight: it states the expert's overriding duty to the court, carries statements of truth and compliance declarations, summarises the instructions, gives the method in full and the custody chain — and discloses anything that could touch credibility, set out up front.
Formally, the expert answers to the court above all. That duty sits higher than any obligation to the person paying or instructing — which is precisely what gives a compliant report its force.
We will. Where the court settles on one joint expert, both sides receive our report on identical terms — an arrangement that tends to concentrate minds.
It has to be disclosed, so we disclose it — after which the court weighs it against the method, and the method is what carries a report. Overclaiming is how experts fall; we claim only what we can show.
Recorders overwrite on a loop, evidence weakens, time limits pass. Open a case early — the first look is free and confidential.