What Is an Expert Opinion and When Should It Be Obtained?
An expert opinion is a written assessment that the parties to a case or legal dispute obtain from a specialist of their own choosing — independently of the court-appointed expert (bilirkişi) — in order to reinforce their claims and defences on scientific and technical grounds. In practice it is also referred to as a “scientific assessment”, “technical assessment” or “party-appointed expert report”.
An expert assessment is a written evaluation by specialists freely selected by the parties, containing the technical, scientific or specialised expert knowledge needed to clarify a case. Unlike the expert appointed by the court on its own motion, a party obtains this opinion on its own initiative and at its own expense.
An expert opinion is particularly critical in the following situations:
- When methodological errors, incomplete assessments or technical inaccuracies are identified in the report of the court-appointed expert
- When the court-appointed expert’s report contains conclusions adverse to your client that are technically open to challenge
- When the subject of the dispute lies in a highly technical or specialised field and the court requires additional technical clarification
- When the technical reality needs to be documented independently in insurance loss disputes, shipyard and shipbuilding cases, or occupational accident compensation claims
- At the pre-litigation stage — in settlement negotiations or before deciding whether a dispute should be taken to court — to assess the situation from a technical standpoint
What Is a Technical Assessment and How Does It Differ from a Court-Appointed Expert Report?
The terms “technical assessment” and “expert opinion” are often used interchangeably; however, in practice “technical assessment” is the term preferred for expert opinions prepared specifically in the fields of engineering, maritime, construction, machinery and other technical disciplines.
The key differences between a court-appointed expert report and an expert opinion / technical assessment can be summarised as follows:
| Criterion | Court-Appointed Expert Report | Expert Opinion / Technical Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Who appoints? | The court, on its own motion or at a party’s request | Selected and appointed directly by the party |
| Legal status | Official evidence under Art. 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) | Scientific assessment under Art. 293 of the HMK |
| Independence | Impartial, sworn before the court | Independent expert representing the party |
| Scope | Limited to technical matters | Can be obtained on any matter forming the subject of the case, including legal matters as well as technical ones |
| Effect on timing | Bound by a court-imposed deadline | No separate time limit can be requested for an expert assessment; it may be submitted to the file at any stage |
| Binding on the judge? | Discretionary evidence; not binding, but relied upon | Discretionary evaluation; must be examined with reasons stated |
Whether the expert opinion, specifically regulated in the HMK, constitutes evidence is a matter of debate in legal doctrine. According to the prevailing view, the expert opinion is a discretionary item of evidence — like the report obtained from a court-appointed expert — or indeed not evidence at all, but rather a report on a special and technical matter that the party submits to the court within the scope of its right to be heard, in order to assist the judge in forming a conviction.
Can an Expert Opinion Be Used as Evidence in Court?
Yes; however, its legal nature and effect differ from those of a court-appointed expert report.
An expert assessment is discretionary evidence; it does not bind the judge, but it must be evaluated with reasons stated.
This requirement flows from both the right to a fair trial and the principle of “equality of arms”. The settled case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) is to the same effect:
Where the parties object to a court-obtained expert report on the basis of an expert opinion, the court’s evaluation of those objections is a requirement of the right to be heard. The Court of Cassation has likewise linked to the right to be heard the obtaining of a new expert report to resolve the conflict between the court-appointed expert report and the expert opinion, and the reasoned evaluation and discussion of the expert opinion.
This case law is of considerable importance: the court cannot disregard a submitted expert opinion; it is obliged to evaluate it with reasons stated. Rendering a decision without carrying out this evaluation is treated by the Court of Cassation as grounds for reversal.
The expert may also be heard at the hearing. The judge may, upon request or on their own motion, decide to summon and hear the expert who prepared the report.
Can an Expert Opinion Be Obtained to Challenge a Court-Appointed Expert Report?
Absolutely yes; and this is the most common purpose for which it is used.
An expert opinion is sometimes submitted by the parties at the stage of the exchange of pleadings, and sometimes at the investigation stage — particularly after an expert examination has been carried out in the file — containing findings and interpretations adverse to the expert report.
Obtaining an expert opinion when objecting to a court-appointed expert report offers the following advantages:
Substantiating the methodological objection: Instead of merely stating that “the report is flawed”, the expert opinion documents on precisely which technical grounds and contrary to which reference standards the report is defective.
Right to be heard: Objections supported by an expert opinion create a strong basis for the court to appoint a new expert.
Mechanism for resolving conflicts: Where the court-appointed expert report and the expert opinion conflict, the court is — according to the Court of Cassation — obliged to resolve that conflict.
The 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has held that resolving the conflict between the expert report obtained by the court and the expert opinion submitted by a party is mandatory, and that this can only be achieved by obtaining a fresh expert report from the court.
What Are the Differences Between an Expert Opinion and a Court-Appointed Expert Report?
The institutions of the court-appointed expert and the expert opinion were introduced into Turkish law as two distinct mechanisms, drawing inspiration from the “expert witness” concept of Anglo-Saxon law.
The concept of the expert opinion was first raised, regulated and introduced into our law through Article 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. It is the reflection in our legal system of the “party-appointed expert” institution of Anglo-Saxon law.
In practical terms, the most critical distinction is as follows:
Court-appointed expert: A specialist who has taken an oath before the judicial system, is regarded as a public official, is appointed by the court, and is subject to standards of impartiality and independence. If they provide an assessment contrary to the truth, they may face criminal sanctions.
Author of an expert opinion: An independent specialist selected and appointed by the party, responsible for the technical and scientific quality of their report, who prepares an assessment supporting the party’s interests (but within scientific standards).
This structure means that the law grants the parties the right to present their own technical arguments on scientific grounds. “Taking a side” and “carrying out a technical assessment in accordance with scientific standards” are not mutually exclusive; a good expert opinion accomplishes both at once.
How Does the Technical Assessment Preparation Process Work?
The preparation of a professional technical assessment consists of five stages:
Stage 1: Preliminary Review and Scope Definition
The expert reviews the fundamental documents in the case file. The purpose of this review is to determine which technical questions the assessment will address, which standards will be applied, and which items of evidence will be analysed. The scope of the subject is clarified according to the nature of the technical dispute.
Stage 2: Document and Evidence Analysis
The documents that need to be gathered for a technical assessment vary according to the nature of the incident, but generally include the following:
- Incident reports, accident records or damage survey documents
- Technical drawings, engineering calculations, project documentation
- Maintenance, service and repair records
- Inspection, survey and appraisal reports
- Standards, technical specifications and contract provisions
- Photographs, video and digital records
- The court-appointed expert report (if any; particularly where the report is being challenged)
Stage 3: On-Site Examination (Where Required)
In some disputes, the damage site, equipment or subject of the survey may need to be examined in person. Boarding the vessel in ship casualties, or a site visit in shipyard disputes, is carried out at this stage.
Stage 4: Analysis and Evaluation
The gathered data is analysed within the framework of the relevant technical standards, international regulations, industry practice norms and engineering principles. Root cause analysis methods may be applied at this stage.
Stage 5: Drafting and Submission of the Report
The technical assessment is prepared as a structured report — of a quality suitable for judicial evaluation — that clearly sets out the findings, the analytical method, the reference standards and the conclusions. The expert agrees to be available to be heard at the hearing where required.
How Long Does It Take to Obtain an Expert Opinion and How Does the Process Proceed?
The time required to prepare a technical assessment varies depending on the complexity of the case, the volume of documents and examinations required, and the workflow from the expert’s appointment through to the report.
A general framework:
| Type of Assessment | Estimated Duration |
|---|---|
| Document-based opinion (no on-site examination required) | 1–3 weeks |
| Technical analysis of moderate complexity | 3–6 weeks |
| Comprehensive assessment requiring on-site examination | 6–12 weeks |
| Multidisciplinary, large-scale dispute | 3 months and above |
An important note: No separate time limit can be requested for an expert assessment; it may be submitted to the file at any stage. This is both an advantage and something requiring care: it is advantageous because it can be submitted at any stage; it requires care because completing an assessment prepared to challenge a court-appointed expert report in line with the objection deadline is strategically important.
What Information Should a Technical Assessment Submitted to Court Contain?
A technical assessment that will be taken seriously by the court and can withstand review by the Court of Cassation should include the following elements:
The expert’s identity and qualifications: The expert’s professional background, academic title, industry experience and relevant certifications. The expert’s level of qualification directly affects the credibility of the assessment.
Definition of the assignment: The questions the assessment seeks to answer and the party at whose request it was prepared.
Documents and materials reviewed: A complete list of all documents and evidence relied upon in the analysis.
Methodology: The analytical method applied, the standards consulted and the technical references. Binding or established references such as IMO standards, SOLAS and sectoral engineering norms should be clearly stated.
Technical findings: The established facts, measurements, calculations and technical determinations.
Evaluation and conclusion: How the findings are interpreted in the light of the applicable standards and contract provisions, and what technical conclusion has been reached.
Reservations and limitations: Matters the expert was unable to examine, or information the expert was unable to access, should be clearly stated. An honest statement of limitations enhances the reliability of the assessment.
Expert’s declaration: A statement that the assessment is the product of an independent evaluation carried out in accordance with scientific standards.
Who Can Prepare an Expert Opinion?
An expert opinion can be obtained not only on technical matters, but on any issue forming the subject of the case, including legal matters. Unlike the provisions governing the court-appointed expert, the subject of an expert opinion is not limited to technical examinations.
Despite this broad scope, the key criteria to observe when selecting an expert for a technical assessment are as follows:
Genuine expertise in the field: In-depth theoretical knowledge and practical experience in engineering, maritime, construction or another technical discipline. An academic title alone is not sufficient; industry experience is indispensable.
Scientific methodology: The ability to support findings with accepted technical standards and methodologies. An analysis built on documents and standards rather than on personal opinion.
Independence: The expert must have no conflict of interest with the case or the parties, so that the assessment retains its character as an impartial scientific evaluation.
Communication skills: The ability to convey technical findings clearly, both in the written report and, where required, at the hearing. Explaining technical matters to judges and lawyers requires a distinct skill.
Why Is an Expert Opinion Necessary in Maritime Disputes?
Maritime disputes are perhaps the field in which the expert opinion is most critical, owing to their technical complexity, international dimensions and specialised regulatory frameworks.
Because short limitation periods and technical evidence (route records, VDR, AIS, survey reports) are critical in maritime disputes, it is advisable to seek legal guidance within 24–72 hours at the latest once an incident occurs.
The principal areas in which an expert opinion is critical in maritime disputes:
Ship collisions and allision cases: Whether the navigation rules under COLREG (the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea) were complied with, the appropriateness of radar and AIS use, and whether bridge procedures were followed all require assessment by a technical expert.
Cargo damage and loss disputes: The cause of cargo damage, the vessel’s seaworthiness, the condition of the holds and stowage practices are all matters for technical analysis.
Shipyard and ship repair disputes: Workmanship defects, material quality, compliance with technical specifications and the cause of damage all require assessment by a technical expert.
Shipbuilding contract disputes: In fields requiring specialised and technical knowledge, such as construction, shipbuilding and software development, situations such as incomplete, defective or late delivery frequently give rise to compensation claims. The complex and technical nature of such cases generally makes it necessary for courts to seek the knowledge and opinions of specialists in the field in order to resolve the dispute.
General average: The calculations relating to the apportionment of sacrifices made for the common safety in the face of a maritime peril require specialist expertise.
How Is a Technical Assessment Prepared in Ship Casualties?
In ship casualty disputes, a technical assessment is a more complex process than a standard engineering assessment. The special elements to be taken into account are as follows:
Analysis of VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) data: Bridge communications, navigation data, speed, course and alarm records reveal the chronology of the incident and the appropriateness of navigational decisions. Being able to carry out the technical analysis of this data requires specialised software and maritime expertise.
AIS records: The AIS data of both vessels or watercraft involved — positions, speeds and course information — enables the movement analysis of the incident.
COLREG compliance analysis: Which navigation rules applied at the moment of collision or close-quarters passing, which vessel complied with the rules, and which manoeuvres were taken or should have been taken — these are the critical questions to be assessed by the maritime expert.
Machinery and technical system records: The condition of the engine, steering gear or other systems affecting manoeuvrability before or during the casualty.
Meteorology and navigational conditions: The effect of wind, current, visibility and waves on the occurrence of the incident requires independent evaluation.
ISM Code and procedural compliance: Whether the vessel’s safety management system (SMS) procedures were followed; bridge training, watch arrangements and emergency response protocols.
The surveyor’s task is to identify the damage and to determine the true cause by establishing accurate information about how the damage arose and its cause. A technical assessment may coincide with the surveyor’s report, but it may also conflict with it — in which case the methodology and evidence underlying both evaluations are analysed comparatively.
What Advantages Does an Expert Opinion Offer in Insurance Loss Files?
Marine insurance disputes — claims under P&I (Protection and Indemnity) and H&M (Hull and Machinery) — are a distinct field in which technical findings and the interpretation of insurance law are intertwined.
Surveys of this kind are generally requested by the Owner, P&I insurance companies, lawyers or Hull and Machinery insurance companies.
The critical functions of an expert opinion in insurance loss files are as follows:
Independent determination of the cause of loss: The insured’s presentation of an independent technical evaluation to counter the expert report appointed by the insurer can be decisive in disputes over the scope of cover.
The technical dimension of policy cover: Whether the loss falls within the peril defined in the policy — the technical interpretation of concepts such as “perils of the sea”, “accidental damage” or “negligence” — requires expert evaluation.
Disputes over the quantum of loss: Repair cost calculations, depreciation (loss of value) calculations and constructive total loss (damage exceeding the reconstruction value) assessments may all be the subject of a technical assessment.
Apportionment of liability: In allision or collision disputes, the technical assessment of each party’s degree of fault under COLREG forms the basis of P&I indemnity calculations.
How Is an Expert Opinion Prepared in Occupational Accidents?
In occupational accident compensation cases, a technical assessment is prepared both within the framework of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 and in the context of the legal dispute.
The key technical matters addressed in occupational accident assessments in shipyard and ship operations:
Accident mechanism and causation: How the accident occurred and what its technical cause was are evaluated within the framework of engineering standards and occupational safety legislation.
Inadequacy of risk assessment: Whether the employer carried out an adequate and up-to-date risk assessment for that operation is examined technically.
Equipment and safety systems: Whether the equipment involved in the accident had been technically maintained, whether the safety systems were functioning, and whether appropriate equipment had been selected.
Compliance with procedures and instructions: Whether the occupational safety procedures were followed and whether the procedures themselves were adequate.
Fault analysis: Once the material facts have been established, the employer’s organisational fault, the worker’s individual error or a third party’s contribution are evaluated within the framework of the technical assessment, and this evaluation forms the technical basis for the legal debate over the apportionment of fault.
How Are Root Cause Analysis Results Used in an Expert Opinion?
Root cause analysis (RCA) and the expert opinion are two complementary tools that together form a very powerful technical argument.
The contributions of RCA to the expert opinion:
Documenting the chain of causation: RCA sets out the chain of events leading to the accident in a structured manner. The expert opinion verifies and documents each link in this chain within the framework of technical standards.
Moving beyond the “human error” narrative: Many court-appointed expert reports define the cause of an accident as “operator error” or “carelessness”. An expert opinion based on RCA results reveals the systemic, equipment, training or procedural weaknesses behind this superficial conclusion, and apportions liability more accurately.
The technical basis for CAPA recommendations: As part of the dispute resolution, the corrective actions the employer should undertake are recommended in the expert opinion together with their technical justification.
Identifying methodological gaps in the court-appointed expert report: Where the court-appointed expert has not examined the root causes in depth or has carried out a superficial cause-and-effect analysis, an expert opinion based on RCA methodology gives concrete form to that methodological gap.
What Is the Difference Between a Technical Assessment and a Legal Assessment?
Unlike a court-appointed expert report, an expert opinion can be obtained not only on technical matters but on any issue forming the subject of the case, including legal matters. Contrary to the HMK provisions governing the court-appointed expert, the subject of an expert opinion is not limited to technical examinations; legal interpretations and evaluations are not prohibited in an expert opinion.
Nevertheless, in practice two distinct types of assessment arise:
Technical assessment: Prepared by a specialist in engineering, maritime, construction, machinery or another technical field. Physical reality, causation, compliance with standards and technical facts are evaluated.
Legal assessment: Prepared by a legal academic or a lawyer who is a specialist in the field. It provides an evaluation of matters such as statutory interpretation, case law analysis, the interpretation of a contract provision or the application of international law.
Both types of assessment may be submitted together in a case, and they most often reinforce one another: the technical assessment establishes the material reality, while the legal assessment evaluates the legal consequences of that reality.
What Happens If There Is a Conflict Between a Private Expert Report and a Court-Appointed Expert Report?
This is a situation frequently encountered in the Turkish judicial system, and one on which the Court of Cassation has developed extensive case law.
Resolving the conflict between a court-appointed expert report and an expert opinion is a requirement of the right to be heard.
The Court of Cassation’s position on this matter is consistent: the court cannot disregard the conflict between the two reports without giving reasons. The means of resolving the conflict are as follows:
Appointment of a new court-appointed expert: The most common route; a new (and generally broader) panel of experts is constituted to evaluate and resolve the existing conflict.
Summoning the expert to the hearing: The judge may summon the expert to the hearing and put questions both directly and through the parties; this route enables the conflict grounded in the reports to be resolved through oral discussion.
Reasoned evaluation: The court is obliged to explain, with reasons, why it does not accept the expert opinion or why it prefers the court-appointed expert report.
The conflict between the expert reports obtained by the court and the submitted expert opinion must be resolved — taking into account, where necessary, the possibility provided under the second paragraph of the said article for the judge to summon and hear the expert who prepared the report — and a decision must be rendered in a manner that resolves the conflict within the framework of the resulting conclusion.
Which Documents and Records Are Examined When Preparing an Expert Opinion?
The documents to be examined differ considerably according to the type of case and the nature of the technical dispute. In maritime disputes, the typical document set includes the following:
Incident documents: Accident report, master’s statement, sea protest, damage survey report, harbour master’s records.
Technical records: VDR record, AIS data, engine log books, bridge logs, machinery logs.
Survey reports: Damage surveyors’ reports, P&I correspondent reports, class survey records.
Certification: Ship certificates, ISM document, STCW certificates, technical drawings and equipment catalogues.
Correspondence: E-mails and correspondence between the parties; particularly documents referring to problems known before the damage or to maintenance deficiencies.
Photographs and video: Visual records taken at the time of the incident or immediately afterwards.
Meteorological data: Official meteorological data for the day and hour of the incident.
How Are Expert Opinion Fees Determined and What Factors Affect Them?
The cost of preparing an expert opinion is determined not by a fixed tariff but by a combination of several factors.
Field and level of expertise: Specialists in highly specialised fields such as maritime, nuclear engineering or chemical process engineering command higher fees than experts in general engineering fields. Academic title and industry experience are also determining factors.
Complexity of the case: The volume of documents to be analysed, the depth of the methodology to be applied and the number of technical questions directly affect the total working time and hence the cost.
On-site examination: Travel to site, and the examination of equipment or a vessel, increase the cost owing to travel, accommodation and on-site working time.
Length and complexity of the report: There is a significant difference between a brief opinion letter and a comprehensive technical analysis report.
Attendance at the hearing: If the expert is requested to be heard at the hearing, the preparation, travel and attendance time is calculated separately.
Urgency: Assessments that need to be completed within a short time may require an additional fee compared with the standard timeframe.
As a general approach, expert opinion fees may be set on an hourly or daily rate, or as a total project fee. Transparent and pre-agreed pricing is the foundation of a healthy relationship for both the party and the expert.
What Should Be Considered When Engaging a Professional Expert Opinion Service?
Selecting the right expert is the most critical decision determining the quality of the assessment and its impact on the case.
Technical expertise and industry experience: The expert should have not only academic knowledge but also genuine operational experience in the field. In maritime disputes, actual experience in seafaring, shipyard or port operations is essential.
Transparency of methodology: The expert should be able to explain in advance the methodology and standards according to which the evaluation will be carried out. An unclear methodology makes it harder for the assessment to command credibility in court.
Independence and absence of conflict of interest: It is essential that the expert has no conflict of interest with the case, the parties or the subject matter. This independence both preserves the reliability of the assessment and minimises the opposing party’s objections.
Experience with maritime law disputes: Particularly for assessments to be submitted to a court or arbitration, an expert who understands the legal context and is familiar with evidentiary standards and procedural requirements should be preferred.
Capacity to be heard at the hearing: The expert’s readiness to be heard in court where required, and their ability to defend their technical findings under pressure, enhance the practical value of the assessment.
References and prior case experience: An expert whose assessments in previous similar cases have been accepted by the courts and have withstood review by the Court of Cassation is a more reliable choice.
Orionis Shipping Technical Assessment and Expert Opinion Services
At Orionis Shipping, we provide technical assessment and expert opinion services with a team of specialists who have an in-depth understanding of the particular technical and legal complexity of the maritime industry.
From ship casualties to shipyard disputes, and from P&I loss files to occupational accident compensation cases, we produce independent technical assessments — prepared with scientific methodology and suitable for submission to court under Art. 293 of the HMK.
Contact us to challenge a court-appointed expert report in your case, to strengthen your insurance loss file, or to document your technical dispute with an independent expert evaluation.
This content is for general information purposes only. For your legal disputes, please seek advice from a specialist lawyer. For the statutory provisions governing the expert opinion under Turkish law, refer to Art. 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) and Art. 67/6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK).
Tags: expert opinion, technical assessment, scientific assessment, HMK 293, challenging a court-appointed expert report, private expert, maritime dispute expert report, ship casualty technical assessment, P&I insurance expert opinion, occupational accident technical report, root cause analysis expert opinion, court technical evidence, party-appointed expert, shipyard dispute assessment, Court of Cassation expert opinion
