22.1 If there is little dispute between the medical experts in the relevant disciplines it is sensible to try to agree the medical evidence before trial. It is usually the case that where the medical evidence is similar from both the Defendant's and the Claimant's expert then settlement will follow. The parties legal advisers will usually agree the medical evidence in correspondence and assessment of quantum will be the only remaining issue.

22.2 Meetings If the medical experts are far apart then the modern practice is for the parties to instruct, or the court to order, that the experts meet or talk over the telephone to identify the main areas of disagreement. Instructing experts to make such arrangements is not a simple matter. Some experts are reluctant to shift their stated positions before trial. Others, with experience of the costs involved in taking cases to trial, will understand the need for a conversation between the experts before trial to narrow the issues.

22.3 The court's power to order the experts to meet is set out in The Civil Procedure Rules part 35.12 It directs:

"the court may, at any stage, direct a discussion between the experts for the purpose of requiring the exerts to (a) identify and discuss the issues in the proceedings; and (b) where possible reach an agreed opinion on those issues. (2) the court may specify the issues which the experts must discuss. ...”

The rule goes on to say that the court may direct the experts to prepare a statement setting out the areas of agreement and disagreement and their reasons for disagreeing.

22.4 Arranging for the experts to meet is particularly important in cases involving acceleration of neck or back symptoms where the experts consider that the pain was caused by the accident but would have arisen in any event at some time in future due to pre-existing degeneration of the spine. Such meetings can save