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
Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll