- 0800 1337 444
- [email protected]
- United Kingdom
A Part 35 report is an independent expert report prepared for legal proceedings, governed by strict procedural rules.
Its purpose is not to support a party’s position. Its duty is to assist the court.
That independence — combined with transparent methodology and clear separation of fact and opinion — is what gives a Part 35 report evidential weight.
Part 35 experts are typically instructed where invasive plants are central to disputes involving:
In these cases, how evidence is gathered, framed, and presented is as important as the findings themselves.
A compliant Part 35 report must:
Reports that fail to meet these standards risk being challenged, limited, or excluded.
When instructed under Part 35, we act solely as independent experts.
This means:
Our role is to establish facts, assess risk, and explain technical matters clearly — so the court can reach an informed decision.
When instructed under Part 35, our role is not to advise on outcomes, but to assist the court by addressing defined technical questions, typically including:
| Assessment point | What is considered |
|---|---|
| Presence and activity | Whether invasive plant growth is present, historic or currently active. |
| Origin and pathways of spread | The likely source of growth and mechanisms of spread, including interaction across boundaries. |
| Foreseeability | Whether spread was reasonably foreseeable at the material time. |
| Reasonableness of actions | Whether actions taken, or not taken, were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. |
| Attribution of loss or risk | Whether any alleged loss or risk can be technically attributed to the presence of the plant. |
| Appropriateness of remediation | Whether proposed remediation measures are necessary, excessive or insufficient. |
Each report is structured to address these matters explicitly, with clear separation between observed fact, assumed fact, and expert opinion, as required by CPR Part 35.
We provide Part 35 expertise relating to:
A properly prepared Part 35 report is not about persuasion.
It is about controlling litigation risk.
Specifically, it helps prevent:
Clear expert evidence often narrows disputes before trial — or determines whether proceedings are viable at all.
When acting as a Part 35 expert, our sole duty is to the court, not to the instructing party.
To preserve independence:
We are instructed by:
(via legal representation)
Early instruction often prevents escalation. Late instruction often clarifies it.
The scope of instruction is agreed and the legal questions to be addressed are defined in writing.
This includes site inspection, relevant documents, plans and any disclosure material provided.
A formal expert report is produced in full compliance with CPR Part 35, including the required declarations.
Any written questions under CPR 35.6 are considered and responded to formally.
Joint discussions with other experts may take place, followed by preparation of a joint statement.
The report may be relied upon at settlement, mediation or trial, as directed.
When invasive species are part of a dispute, uncertainty quickly becomes liability.
If Japanese knotweed or other invasive growth is contributing to a boundary dispute, claim, or legal process, the next step is to establish a clear, independent expert position that can withstand scrutiny.
These guarantees are designed to provide long-term assurance, supporting future sales, lending decisions, and ongoing management where required.
No. A Part 35 report is a formal legal document prepared specifically for use in litigation or dispute resolution and must comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. Surveys and management plans are advisory documents and do not meet the procedural, evidential, or independence requirements of CPR Part 35. A report that is not Part 35 compliant cannot be relied upon as expert evidence by the court.
No. Independence is fundamental under CPR Part 35. An expert must have no financial or commercial interest in the outcome of the dispute. Acting as both expert and contractor would create a conflict of interest and undermine the admissibility and weight of the evidence. Where we are instructed as Part 35 experts, we do not undertake any treatment, removal, or remediation works connected to the site.
Yes — and this is expected. Part 35 reports are frequently tested through written questions under CPR 35.6, expert meetings, joint statements, and cross-examination. This is why procedural compliance, transparent methodology, clear reasoning, and a strict separation of fact and opinion are essential. Reports that lack clarity or independence are vulnerable to being limited or excluded.
No. A Part 35 report does not determine liability, fault, or outcome. Its purpose is to assist the court by providing independent expert evidence on defined technical matters. The court determines liability after considering all evidence, including expert reports from one or more parties.
As early as practicable once it is clear that invasive plants are central to a dispute. Early expert input can clarify technical positions, narrow issues, and prevent unnecessary escalation. In some cases, early instruction identifies that claims are not technically supported, allowing matters to resolve before costs increase.
Yes. Part 35 experts are frequently instructed during the pre-action phase. A compliant expert report can inform correspondence, pre-action protocols, mediation, or early settlement discussions. The same procedural standards apply whether the report is used pre-action or during formal proceedings.
A Part 35 report is based on a combination of site inspection, documentary evidence, and disclosed material. This may include surveys, historical plans, conveyancing documents, correspondence, photographs, and third-party reports. All assumptions are clearly stated, and limitations are explicitly identified, as required by CPR Part 35.
Yes, where appropriate. We can act as a Single Joint Expert instructed by both parties under CPR Part 35.7. In these cases, our duty remains solely to the court, and the report is prepared on a neutral basis addressing agreed questions. Single joint expert instruction can reduce cost, narrow issues, and support proportionate resolution.
We provide Part 35 expertise relating to Japanese knotweed, bamboo, giant hogweed, Himalayan balsam, and other invasive or persistent plant species where origin, spread, impact, or responsibility is disputed. Each report is species-specific and tailored to the technical questions raised by the dispute.
Not automatically. However, clear, independent expert evidence often narrows the issues in dispute, informs realistic settlement discussions, or determines whether proceedings are viable. In many cases, disputes resolve once technical uncertainty is removed.
This depends on the nature of the dispute and how central invasive plants are to the issues being argued. If technical matters such as origin, spread, risk, or remediation are disputed — and opinion evidence is required — a Part 35 expert is usually necessary. We can confirm whether Part 35 instruction is appropriate before any formal appointment is made.
Yes. Many are commissioned during pre-action protocols and contribute to early resolution.
If you’re considering Part 35 instruction — or need to understand whether it’s appropriate — speak to our team in confidence.
We’ll confirm whether expert evidence is required and how best to proceed within the rules.