Will Joint minutes between actuaries resolve differences

‍Attorney asks:
Regarding loss of income (personal injury) or loss of support claims against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) or other defendants and similarly for future medical costs:

If the actuary acting as expert witness for the plaintiff and the actuary acting for the defendant each do a report but come up with significantly different results, what could be the reason for that?

Would a joint minutes between the two actuaries help resolve the issue of which of the two figures should be used for settlement?

Actuary responds:
The actuaries play a different role from the other expert witnesses.

The other experts establish the facts. The actuaries are given the facts and put a value on the claim.

If the 2 actuaries are given different facts and expert reports on which to base the claim, their results will obviously differ.

The 2 legal teams would need to agree on which facts to use. This collaborative process, often facilitated by obtaining joint minutes between the 2 industrial psychologists representing the 2 sides, ensures that the joint minutes between the actuaries can be useful.

In many cases, if the facts are agreed between the 2 legal teams, the results of the two actuaries will be close enough that no joint minutes will be required. This potential for agreement offers an optimistic outlook for the resolution of discrepancies.