through the eyes of someone who comes to the matter with no partisan inclination one way or the other. Neutral evaluation is probably as good a way as any of road-testing a case in a robust fashion but without losing control of the outcome altogether. That said, neutral evaluation probably has its best ‘fit’ with more complex cases, including construction cases, or cases in which there are technical issues that involve conflicting expert opinions, and in which both parties have a reasonably high level of confidence that they will succeed.5 It may also be beneficial if there is a specific issue that can be isolated and assessed - perhaps, say, a valuation question, or an accounting for damages claimed. Perhaps the greatest strength of neutral evaluation lies in the limited nature of its objective. The purpose is to obtain an independent, objective, and non-binding evaluation of a case. There need not be any of the rubric of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ that comes with determinative processes such as litigation or arbitration. Of itself, agreeing to neutral evaluation carries no particular promise to negotiate (much less to negotiate in a particular way or at a given time, as in mediation). It is simply about understanding the case better before either the decision-making axe falls, or one finds oneself negotiating with a party whose ignorance has given rise to a misplaced sense of the strength of its bargaining position.6 Neutral evaluation neither claims to be, nor needs to be, anything more than it is. Neutral evaluation has a respectable pedigree. It is a recognised part of Court process (or as a possibility that can be accessed through the Courts) in a number of jurisdictions outside New Zealand.7 Several jurisdictions include specific reference to neutral evaluation in rules of procedure8, or as a process that can be accessed through the Courts. The American Arbitration Association offers standard procedures for Early Neutral Evaluation. And, closer to home, the Law Society of New South Wales administers a detailed ENE process which is described as ‘… a confidential pre-trial’. 9 In New Zealand, neutral evaluation is an entirely voluntary process. It therefore requires agreement between the parties as to how the evaluation will be undertaken to allow the evaluator to make a robust assessment. Process can be tailored to fit the particular case, but the essential elements that one would expect to be dealt with in a contract for neutral evaluation relate to the appointment of the evaluator; confidentiality and inadmissibility of evidence of the assessment; and the process by which information is to be given to the evaluator to assess. That can range from asking for an assessment ‘on the papers’, to running what is in effect a ‘mini-trial’ with opportunities for evidence and examination and submissions. 10 It is also important to remember that it is not obligatory to submit all issues in a case to the evaluator. The reality is that, sooner or later, almost all civil litigation settles. It follows that practitioners in litigation need to know at least as much (arguably, more) about negotiating and settling cases to the advantage of their clients as they do about leading evidence and examining witnesses. Understanding neutral evaluation, and being able to engage in it effectively, is undoubtedly part of that skillset.