header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 May 2011 / Penny Cooper
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Call yourself an expert?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll