A CPR Part 35 compliant expert report on digital evidence, cyber incidents, or OSINT findings, prepared for use in civil proceedings.
Civil proceedings that turn on digital evidence, a cyber incident, an authenticity question, an open-source finding, require an expert report that meets the specific procedural requirements of CPR Part 35: independence from the instructing party, a statement of truth, a clear statement of the expert's qualifications and the basis for their opinion, and a report structure the court and opposing counsel can properly test. A technically sound analysis prepared without attention to those requirements can be challenged or excluded on procedural grounds alone, regardless of its substance. The same discipline applies in reverse: when an opposing party serves an expert report on the same class of evidence, it needs to be tested on its actual substance, methodology, assumptions, and the confidence level claimed against what the underlying data supports, not dismissed on general scepticism alone.
A CPR Part 35 compliant expert report addressing the specific digital or intelligence question in your matter, prepared with full procedural compliance, a clear statement of methodology and qualifications, and a conclusion structured to withstand cross-examination. Where an opposing expert has already reported, the same service covers an independent rebuttal, addressing that report's methodology, assumptions and conclusions directly and re-examining the underlying evidence where accessible.
Full CPR Part 35 procedural compliance, including the statement of truth
Clear statement of the expert's qualifications and independence
Methodology disclosed in enough detail to be properly tested
Findings stated with appropriate confidence levels, not overstated
Available for a single joint expert instruction or party-appointed instruction
Independent rebuttal of an opposing expert's report, point-by-point, where one has already been served
Analysis conducted to the specific technical question instructed, documented with full chain of custody and methodology disclosure, and drafted to CPR Part 35 procedural requirements throughout. Where the instruction is a rebuttal, the same underlying evidence and data the opposing report relies on is independently re-examined and tested against our own methodology, with discrepancies and unsupported claims identified specifically rather than through general critique. Every report is reviewed for compliance before delivery.
Yes, where both parties agree, and the same independence and procedural discipline applies whether instructed jointly or by a single party.
Digital evidence and forensics, cyber incident analysis, and open-source intelligence findings, consistent with the disciplines covered across our Cyber and AI & Synthetic Intelligence capabilities.
Yes, and the report is prepared throughout with that possibility in mind, with the underlying methodology and evidence available to withstand cross-examination.
The expert's duty is to the court, not to the instructing party, and the report is drafted and conclusions reached independently of what any party might prefer the finding to be.
Yes. Where an opposing party has served an expert report on digital evidence, a cyber incident, or an open-source finding, we can independently re-examine the underlying evidence where accessible and test the report's methodology and conclusions, prepared to the same CPR Part 35 procedural standard as the report it responds to.
That is reported honestly. Our duty is to the accuracy of our own findings, not to producing a rebuttal that supports your position regardless of what the evidence shows.
Every enquiry is reviewed by an analyst and routed to a scoping call, a fixed fee is confirmed in writing before any work begins.