Additional, Repeat, Commission and Complex Examinations

You have received an expert’s report — and it either failed to convince you or raised new questions. The next step seems obvious: “order another examination.” But which type you choose — additional, repeat, commission or complex — determines who will conduct it, how much time and money it will consume, and whether the court will appoint it at all.

In my practice, confusion between these types is one of the most common reasons a motion is refused, or a party spends months and money on an examination that does not solve its problem. So let us work through it systematically.

One report — several different procedures

The classification of forensic examination types is set out in the Instruction on the Appointment and Conduct of Forensic Examinations and Expert Studies, approved by Order No. 53/5 of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. It uses concepts that are often mixed up in practice:

• primary — when a circumstance is examined for the first time;
• additional — when a previous study needs to be supplemented or clarified;
• repeat — when there is doubt about the correctness of a report already provided;
• commission — when several experts of the same specialty work together;
• complex — when knowledge from different fields is required at once.

The first three (primary / additional / repeat) answer the question “how fully and correctly was the matter examined.” The last two (commission / complex) describe the composition of experts and can be combined with any of the first three. For example, you can have a commission repeat examination or a complex primary one. These are different axes of classification, which is precisely why they cannot be set against each other directly.

Primary examination

This is the baseline, initial study of a given set of questions. In the forensic economic field, a primary examination in economic specialties (accounting and tax records, documents on economic activity, documents of financial and credit operations) answers, for instance, questions about the documentary confirmation of business transactions, the correctness of tax liability calculations, or the justification for the movement of funds in credit operations. Everything that follows is a reaction to its result.

Additional examination

An additional examination is ordered when the report itself raises no doubt, but is insufficiently complete or clear, or when new or clarifying questions have arisen about the same circumstances. A classic situation: the expert answered the questions posed, but new source documents were added to the case file and must be taken into account; or the court wants a more detailed calculation for a particular period.

The key feature: an additional examination is, as a rule, assigned to the same expert who conducted the primary study (although the law also permits assigning it to another). This makes sense — that expert is already immersed in the materials, so the supplement is faster and cheaper.

Repeat examination

A repeat examination is ordered when there is doubt about the correctness of the previous report: it appears unfounded, contradicts other case materials or other reports, or a question arises about the methodology applied. Here the study is conducted essentially from scratch, in full, and — this is a matter of principle — is assigned to a different expert or a commission of experts. The person who already gave a report does not “check themselves.”

Commission and complex examination

These two types concern the composition of those who perform the work:

• Commission — no fewer than two experts of the same specialty examine the same questions. It is ordered in complex or high-stakes cases to obtain a coordinated position from the specialists. If their opinions coincide, the experts sign a single report; if not, each dissenting expert has the right to provide a separate report.
• Complex — experts of different specialties are engaged (for example, an economist and a handwriting expert, or an economist and a computer-technical forensic specialist). Each examines questions within their own competence, and a joint report is formulated on those circumstances that require the integration of knowledge.

Additional or repeat: the key fork

This is the most important decision, and it is where most mistakes are made. A simple rule: ask yourself what exactly the problem with the existing report is.

Feature	Additional	Repeat
Reason	Incompleteness, ambiguity, new questions	Doubt about correctness, contradictions
Trust in the first report	Preserved	Called into question
Who conducts it	Usually the same expert	Necessarily a different expert / commission
Scope of work	A supplement to what is done	A full study from scratch
Effect on timing and cost	Moderate	Substantial

If you agree with the expert’s approach but lack an answer to an additional question — that is an additional examination. If you believe the expert erred on the merits or applied a flawed methodology — that is a repeat examination. There is no intermediate option, and one cannot be substituted for the other.

Procedural grounds: what the law says

The classification is set by Instruction No. 53/5, but the right to appoint a particular type is enshrined in the procedural codes. It is these that you must cite in your motion:

• Civil procedure — additional and repeat examinations are expressly provided for by Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (TsPK): additional for incompleteness or ambiguity of the report (to the same or another expert), repeat for a report that is unfounded or contradictory (necessarily to another expert).
• Commercial procedure — an analogous rule is contained in Article 107 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (HPK) (“Additional or repeat examination”), with the same logic of grounds.
• Administrative justice — additional and repeat examinations are governed by Article 111 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (KAS) under similar criteria.
• Criminal proceedings — the appointment of an examination by the court during trial, including additional and repeat ones, is governed by Article 332 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (KPK) (“Conducting an examination by court ruling”); at the pre-trial stage, an expert is engaged by the parties and, where necessary, by decision of the investigating judge.

The general framework for all proceedings is set by the specialized Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity.” Importantly, the court evaluates an expert’s report without any predetermined weight: a party’s disagreement is not in itself a ground for a repeat examination — you must substantiate a specific doubt or contradiction. It is therefore not enough to write “the report does not satisfy us”; you must show exactly how it is wrong.

How the choice of type affects timing and cost

This is the part parties most often underestimate, yet it has entirely practical consequences for the budget and the calendar of a case.

1. Additional is usually the fastest and cheapest: the expert already knows the materials, so they examine only the increment of questions or documents. Often this is a matter of days or weeks, not months.
2. Repeat is practically a new study “from zero” by a different specialist who must first study the entire body of materials. This almost always means a longer timeline and higher cost than the primary examination — because the time for familiarization is added on.
3. Commission is more expensive because of the work of several experts and the time to agree on a joint position.
4. Complex is the most demanding organizationally: specialists from different fields must be coordinated, and the overall timeline is set by the slowest link.

The practical takeaway: the wrong choice of type is not only a procedural error but a financial one. Ordering a repeat examination where an additional one would have sufficed means paying for a full study instead of a supplement.

Typical mistakes from my practice

• Asking for a “repeat” when an “additional” would suffice. A party is unhappy that the expert did not answer some question and demands a repeat examination. The court refuses, because there is no doubt about correctness — only incompleteness. The right move was a motion for an additional examination.
• Asking for an “additional” when a “repeat” is needed. If you believe the report is wrong on the merits, an additional examination will not fix it: it is, as a rule, assigned to the same expert, who will more likely confirm their own position. The dispute remains unresolved.
• Confusing the type of study with new questions. If the questions go beyond the previous subject matter, this is no longer an “additional” examination but a new primary one, often in a different specialty.
• Not reading the analytical part of the report. Decisions on type are made looking only at the concluding answers. Yet the ground for a repeat examination (flawed methodology, an unfounded calculation) is almost always visible precisely in the analytical part.
• Framing doubt emotionally rather than substantively. “The expert is biased” is not a ground. “The calculation was made without regard to source documents that are in the case file” is a ground.

How to proceed: a short algorithm

1. Define the nature of the problem. Is it a gap or a new question — or a doubt about correctness? Everything else depends on this answer.
2. Read the report in full, together with the analytical part and the list of materials and methods used.
3. Formulate the questions precisely — so that they do not duplicate what has already been examined and do not stray beyond the subject matter without your noticing.
4. Choose the right motion — for an additional or a repeat examination, specifying a commission or complex composition where needed.
5. Consult an expert before filing the motion. Often a short consultation is enough to save months and to avoid a refusal by the court.

If you are unsure which type of study to appoint in your situation, or you would like someone to independently assess an existing report for completeness and soundness, get in touch for a consultation. Together we will determine what your case actually needs and formulate the correct questions before the motion is ever filed with the court.