Supreme Court abolishes expert immunity
Posted by Kelly Ratcliffe on 4th April 2011
For 400 years, experts participating in litigation have been protected against being sued for breach of duty. In a significant Judgment, the Supreme Court has recently overturned this rule.
Jones (Appellant) v Kaney (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 13, concerned a clinical psychologist who had signed a joint statement which inaccurately reflected what was agreed between the experts at a joint meeting. In signing the inaccurate statement it was alleged that the expert had acted negligently, with the result that the appellant settled the case for a much lower sum than he might otherwise have achieved.
The appellant issued a claim for negligence against the respondent, who in turn applied for the claim to be struck out. The High Court was bound by the rule on expert witness immunity as per the Court of Appeal’s decision in Stanton v Callaghan [2000] QB 75 and accordingly granted the respondent’s application for a strike out.
The High Court Judge however recognised the issue in the case to be one of general public importance and permission was granted for the appellant’s appeal against the strike out to progress directly to the Supreme Court.
By a majority of five to two, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeal and the rule on expert witness immunity has been abolished. In the lead judgment, Lord Phillips considered the likely implications of removing immunity for experts. He concluded there to be no justification for expert witnesses to remain immune from suit for breach of duty. The dissenting views of Lord Hope and Lady Hale expressed concern that disappointed litigants may bring unfounded claims against their experts.
