header-logo header-logo

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

Call yourself an expert?

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

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll