Anton van Dellen surveys the damage following the removal of expert witness immunity in Jones v Kaney
One of the reasons given for the Supreme Court’s removal of expert witness immunity from being sued for negligence in Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 All ER 671 was that a direct parallel could be drawn with barristers (Lord Phillips at [46-50]). Immunity from liability in negligence for barristers had been removed in Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615, [2000] 3 All ER 673.
Lord Phillips went on to note (at [59]) that he doubted whether removal of expert witness immunity would lead to a proliferation of vexatious claims and that he was not aware that barristers had experienced a flood of such claims from disappointed litigants. Yet, in even the short period of seven months since the Supreme Court’s decision, case law from the Court of Appeal has demonstrated that the Supreme Court’s decision is playing a significant part in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.
Court of Appeal case
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
