Expert research – a trump card in the mediation procedure?

In appeals to experts of the Expert Research Service of Ukraine, a significant proportion is occupied by requests for expert research in the pretrial order. And this is not surprising, since expert research is the only way to appeal to an expert if the trial has not started. Armed with the information provided as a result of the study, the customer can better build a strategy for further action on certain issues or problems that he had.

It should be noted that according to Instruction No. 53/5 from 08.10.1998r. “On the appointment and conduct of forensic examinations and expert studies and methodological recommendations on the preparation and appointment of forensic examinations and expert studies” (hereinafter referred to as Instruction No. 53/5), expert studies are carried out in the manner provided for conducting forensic examinations, in h require special knowledge and the use of forensic techniques. The course and results of such studies are presented in the conclusion of an expert study.

The conclusion of the expert study is compiled according to the structure and content as well as the expert opinion.

The basis for the expert study is a written statement (letter) of the customer (legal or natural person) with a list of issues to be resolved, as well as objects provided for the study.

So, we will consider the main advantages of applying to an expert for expert research.

An expert study is no less important than an examination, under certain conditions:

- the need for special knowledge in the field other than the law, without which it is impossible to establish the relevant circumstances;

- the need to obtain objective, complete and reasonable information about the circumstances that require analysis;

- the need to obtain additional arguments for the possibility of forming a position and further actions to solve problems that have or may take place;

- the need to formulate the position of the party before the start of the trial (if the trial has not yet begun)

- the desire to quickly resolve certain issues of the parties without opening court proceedings through the achievement of mutual consent (for example, through negotiations)

- the desire of the parties to avoid unnecessary financial costs.

What is common between expert research and expertise, and how do they differ?

1) expert research, as opposed to examination, can be prepared outside the judicial process, that is, when judicial proceedings have not yet begun;

2) during the trial expert examination has the same evidentiary power as expertise;

3) the content and structure of the conclusion of expert research and examination do not differ;

4) the expert's approach to the implementation of expert research (namely, the provision of an objective, complete and reasonable conclusion about the circumstances requiring analysis) is the same as the formation of expertise for the court;

5) the study is carried out only on order, and the examination, as ordered by the parties to the judicial process, is appointed by the court.

Negotiation of pre-trial dispute resolution

As can be seen from the above, one of the main objectives of the order of expert research is the possibility of conducting a constructive dialogue between the parties in the negotiations. In other words, the results of expert research have a significant impact on the outcome of negotiations between the parties.

Negotiation of pre-trial dispute resolution

As can be seen from the above, one of the main objectives of the order of expert research is the possibility of conducting a constructive dialogue between the parties in the negotiations. In other words, the results of expert research have a significant impact on the outcome of negotiations between the parties.

Negotiations include the process of discussing a specific problem in which the parties are involved, with the aim of reaching a joint solution. Pre-trial settlement of the dispute will help to resolve controversial issues with the help of agreements, without bringing the matter to court.

Negotiating for the pre-trial settlement of disputes has certain advantages in comparison with the judicial form of protection of rights, namely:

- the ability of the parties to freely dispose of their rights (that is, the parties have a choice to present evidence, select a mediator, petition, file a complaint, etc.)

- the possibility of independent control by the parties of the process and the result of the negotiations;

- Compared with legal proceedings, the parties are deprived of unnecessary financial costs;

- pre-trial resolution of cases is characterized by simplicity of the procedure of consideration of the case, which in turn saves time for resolving contradictions.

Thus, timely appeal to the experts of the Expert and Research Service of Ukraine for the preparation of an expert study in the pretrial order will allow to qualitatively justify their position in the negotiations and, in most cases, to avoid lengthy legal proceedings.