Hot-tubbing is another term for concurrent expert evidence, which is where both parties’ experts give their evidence together in the form of a discussion chaired by the judge. The judge puts the same questions to each expert in turn, rather than each expert being examined and cross-examined sequentially. Counsel can ask questions as well as the judge and experts can also challenge one another on their views. This method of giving evidence is becoming increasingly popular in the Technology and Construction Court.

Concurrent expert evidence (CEE), colloquially known as hot-tubbing, is provided for under CPR PD 35. This Practice Note gives guidance on hot tubbing including its background, when it might be suitable, its advantages and disadvantages, how it works in practice, practical tips on giving expert evidence ‘in the tub’ and a review of how concurrent evidence works. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Other provisions may be relevant—see further in the section: Court specific guidance below. What is hot-tubbing? CEE, or hot-tubbing, is a procedure at trial whereby experts in a similar discipline give their evidence together. The process is governed by CPR PD 35, para 11. Its benefits have been described by a judge in Australia (where the process is thought to have originated) as: ‘…a cooperative endeavour to identify the issues and arrive where possible at a common resolution of them. Where resolution of issues is not possible, a structured discussion with the judge as chairperson allows the experts to give their opinions without

Rule which prevents creditors from double/triple recovery.

Hotchpot rule of domestic English law The hotchpot rule has been a well-established part of domestic English law for many years. Essentially, it requires a creditor to account for whatever it has recovered in a foreign country by way of legal process or otherwise before it can receive any dividend in English insolvency proceedings. If its rate of recovery (through its actions abroad) exceeds that rate payable to other creditors in the English insolvency proceedings, it will not be allowed to participate in the dividend payable in the English proceedings. The hotchpot rule should be distinguished from the following: • the rule against double proof: preventing more than one proof being filed for the same underlying debt (see Practice Note: Rejection of proof of debt) • double payment: ensuring the debtor is not liable twice for the same debt (see further below) The hotchpot rule was summarised by the Privy Council in Cleaver v Delta American Reinsurance (in liquidation) as requiring a creditor to 'bring into the common fund what he

A clause in a will or other testamentary disposition to the effect that advances made by the testator are brought into account.

Law360, London: Britannia Hotels has settled its £6.2m damages claim against Aviva which alleged that the insurer did not pay out money owed for damage caused by a fire, a London court has confirmed.

Personal Injury analysis: Neil Block QC, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, examines the High Court’s decision in Al-Najar (a protected party by her litigation friend) and others v Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd that a hotel proprietor owes a duty to guests to take reasonable care to protect them against injury caused by a third party’s criminal actions, but the defendant hotel had not breached its duty of care to the claimant guests who sustained very serious injuries when they were attacked in their room by a burglar.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 September 2015 to close the investigation; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I investigation into the hotel online booking sector. The case was reopened following the CAT's judgment in Skyscanner v CMA Latest developments On 20 August 2020, the CMA issued an update in its project monitoring the pricing practices of online travel agents, following the expiry of commitments made in 2015 by Booking.com and Expedia not to enforce ‘wide’ parity clauses in online hotel booking contracts. In short, following the expiration of formal commitments on 1 July 2020, the companies said that they will continue to act in accordance with the commitments going forward. Both companies have also confirmed that their commitments will still apply in the UK. The CMA will continue to liaise closely with fellow national competition authorities and the Commission, as they monitor the market both in the UK and across Europe. Parties •

1 Definitions [In these enquiries, Hotel Business refers to [insert definition of the hotel business]] 2 Licensing Act 2003 (LA 2003) 2.1 Is the Property used for any of the following licensable activities: 2.1.1 the retail sale of alcohol? 2.1.2 the supply of alcohol by, or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club? 2.1.3 the provision of regulated entertainment? 2.1.4 the provision of late-night refreshment? 2.2 If so, please: 2.2.1 supply a copy of the premises licence or the club premises certificate (including all conditions and undertakings); 2.2.2 supply a copy of the personal licence of the designated premises supervisor; 2.2.3 advise if any application is currently in progress for a variation to the premises licence and provide details; 2.2.4 [confirm that the holder of the premises licence will consent to the transfer of the premises licence to the Buyer

Licence due diligence When acting for the purchaser of a hotel there are a number of potential licensing issues relating to food, beverage and entertainment that will need to be considered depending on the activities the hotel undertakes. These may include: • selling alcohol to guests either in a bar, dining room, lounge, room-service or mini-bar in rooms • playing music in common hotel areas, restaurant, dining room and bar • serving food to guests through the night either by way of vending machines or room service • having gaming machines or gambling facilities on site • dancing performed to or for guests to take part in • films not being shown in a community premises, and • holding weddings Consideration will need to be given whether the activities undertaken by the hotel business being purchased, require licensing and whether or not these licences will be capable of transfer to the buyer. This Practice Note considers licences under the Licensing Act 2003 (LA 2003), Live Music Act 2012 (LMA 2012), Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005), Marriage Act

Personal Injury analysis: The general principle is that a person of full age and capacity who chooses to run an obvious risk cannot claim against a defendant on the basis that the defendant has either permitted him to run that risk or not prevented him from doing so. The Court of Appeal had to consider how far that general principle applied in the context of a partnership operating a hotel where a guest had fallen to his death from a hotel window. The guest, in order to smoke a cigarette in his room, had opted to sit on a low windowsill, half in the room and half out the window, when he apparently overbalanced and fell. The hotel, faced with a health and safety prosecution, pleaded guilty to failing to complete a risk assessment and failing to apply a simple device costing £8 to prevent the window opening so low as to pose the specific risk of guests falling from the room. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether this admitted breach of criminal statute obliged the court to find a breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957). Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Wheat v Alphabet Inc/Google LLC and another, the claimant sought permission to serve proceedings out of time on Google LLC. In considering whether the claim had any merit, the court undertook a careful examination of what, technically and legally, is the nature of hotlinking and grappled with the arcane world of pay per click advertising. Written by Iain G. Mitchell QC (Scotland), barrister at Tanfield Chambers.