Source: http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-jones-v-kaney-2011-uksc-13
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 07:12:27
Document Index: 649898208

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ']

New Judgment: Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 - UKSC blog – UKSC blog	UK Supreme Court Blog	EDITORS: Dan Tench, Laura Coogan, Cathryn Hopkins, Sophie Lalor-Harbord & Luke Pardey (Olswang)
New Judgment: Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13
On appeal from: [2010] EWHC 61 (QB)
The appellant in this case challenged the rule that an expert witness enjoyed immunity from any form of civil action arising from the evidence he or she gave in the course of proceedings.
Held: by a majority (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting), allowing the appeal. The primary rationale for the immunity was a concern that an expert witness might be reluctant to give evidence contrary to his client’s interest, in breach of his duty to the court, if there was a risk that this might lead his client to sue him. In common with advocates, however, there was no conflict between the duty that the expert had to provide services to his client with reasonable skill and care, and the duty he owed to the court. The removal of immunity for advocates had not diminished their readiness to perform their duty, nor had there been a proliferation of vexatious claims or multiplicity of actions. The majority concluded that no justification had been shown for continuing to hold expert witnesses immune from suit for breach of duty (whether in contract or in negligence). This decision did not affect the continuation of absolute privilege from claims in defamation, nor did it undermine the longstanding immunity of other witnesses in respect of litigation.
For judgment, please download: [2011] UKSC 13
19/04/2011 at 23:39	It is hard to add more to the common sense judgement of their Lordships, except to agree whole heartedly. Expert witnesses are a strange bread. Often arrogant, often wrong, often entering areas beyond their said expertise. Such examples include psychologist David Canter, who helped convict Eddie Gilfoyle of murdering his wife, and now admits: “Yes, I got it wrong – and then an innocent man went to prison for life.” This judgement will not stop things happening in the future. Perhaps it will make experts think again before offering half-baked opinions. If anyone wishes to read a more detailed summary of the case you can read it here: http://www.alexanderamatosi.com/law/2011/3/31/expert-witness-didnt-come-up-trumps-sue-sue-sue.html — if anyone is interested. :)
Leave a reply on "New Judgment: Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13"
Case Previews (155)