header-logo header-logo

Call yourself an expert?

19 May 2011 / Penny Cooper
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Goodbye expert witness immunity, hello higher insurance premiums, says Penny Cooper

There is no doubt about it, Jones v Kaney is a landmark decision.
By a majority of 5-2 the Supreme Court abolished expert witnesses’ immunity from being sued by their clients ([2011] UKSC 13, [2011] All ER (D) 346 (Mar)). Not since the introduction of CPR 35 have we seen such a fundamental change in the law for expert witnesses. 

Jones is about a claimant (Jones) who suffered injuries in a road traffic accident and settled his case following a joint statement signed by experts. Unfortunately Jones’s expert, Dr Kaney, had signed the joint statement even though it did not accurately reflect her views. Jones sued Kaney alleging she had been negligent in signing the statement and had thereby forced him to settle for less than he would otherwise have received. Kaney claimed immunity from suit.

After considering the legal authorities the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips summarised the key issues as follows:

  • What are the purposes of the immunity? 
  • What
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DAC Beachcroft—Ben Daniels

DAC Beachcroft—Ben Daniels

Firm elects new senior partner to lead next phase of growth

Taylor Rose—Amarjit Ryatt

Taylor Rose—Amarjit Ryatt

Partner appointed head of family and divorce

Browne Jacobson—Adam Berry & Adam Culy

Browne Jacobson—Adam Berry & Adam Culy

Financial and professional risks team expand with dual partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll