Expert witnesses no longer immune from being sued

30 March 2011 by

Jones v Kaney – read judgment/press summary. The Supreme Court has ruled that the an expert giving advice in the course of litigation is no longer immune from being sued in negligence.

This case,  which had been granted a “leap-frog certificate” to go straight from the Divisional Court to the Supreme Court, overturns a long-established principle that expert witnesses should be protected from legal action on the basis of public policy.  The majority hold that the immunity from suit for breach of duty (whether in contract or in negligence)  contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to a fair trial under Article 6 impliedly entitles an individual, whose position in civil proceedings has been compromised by negligent advice, to take action against that expert to compensate for the damage caused.

The issue arose in this case because the defendant psychologist (“K”) had signed a joint expert report in civil proceedings taken by the claimant (“J”), who had been seeking damages for psychiatric injury following a road traffic accident. The psychologist’s initial report suggested a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The defendant’s psychiatric expert concluded that J was exaggerating his physical symptoms and, as a result, a joint statement was ordered. The joint expert statement was signed by both experts and was very damaging to J’s case in that it concluded that he had not suffered PTSD and that there were doubts as to the genuineness of his reporting of symptoms. It transpired that K had signed the joint statement without having read the defendant’s report and despite the fact that she did not agree with the joint statement’s contents.

For the full background, see the UK Supreme Court Blog’s case preview. The claim was initially struck out on the basis of a 1998 Court of Appeal ruling which confirmed immunity of suit for expert witnesses on the basis of public policy. The judge (Blake J) conceded the application reluctantly since he had concluded that for an expert to be immune from liability in such circumstances was arguably incompatible with a claimant’s Article 6 rights:

An expert who negligently prepares for a joint conference, fails to carefully scrutinise the proposed joint statement before signing it, or is persuaded to record entirely unfounded imputations against his instructing party based upon a failure to remember or record the instructions, can cause great damage to a party in civil proceedings.

The public policy rationale for the immunity rule is one of common sense; in the interests of economy and expedition of proceedings, the courts will not lightly permit a party to find another expert to replace one in which he has lost confidence. However, this has the effect of leaving a party who is injured by a careless statement or piece of advice without a remedy.  Such a blanket immunity is contrary to the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court as clarified in the 1998 case of  Osman v UK, which establishes that blanket immunities preventing claimants seeking damages in tort may be contrary to art 6 if they are disproportionate having particular regard to their scope and application to the case at issue.

The following is taken from the Supreme Court press summary (references to the paragraphs in the judgment are the numerals in square brackets):

The judgment

The Supreme Court by a majority (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting) allowed the appeal. Lord Phillips gives the lead judgment. The majority hold that the immunity from suit for breach of duty(whether in contract or in negligence) that expert witnesses have enjoyed in relation to their participation in legal proceedings should be abolished.

Reasons for the judgment

Witness immunity dates back over 400 years, long before the development of the modern lawof negligence and the practice of forensic experts to offer services to litigants for reward [11].It originally took the form of absolute privilege against defamation claims but was extended toall forms of suit [12]. It overlapped with the wider immunity formerly enjoyed by an advocatefrom negligence claims by his own client, before that immunity was abolished by the House ofLords in 2001 on the ground that it could no longer be justified [13].

The general rule was that every wrong should have a remedy and that any exception to this rulemust be justified as being necessary in the public interest and kept under review [51][88][113].

The primary rationale for the immunity was a concern that an expert witness might bereluctant 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 [41]. 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 evidence did not suggest that the immunity was necessary to secure an adequate supply of expert witnesses [54][117].The removal of immunity for advocates had not diminished their readiness to performtheir duty, nor had there been a proliferation of vexatious claims or multiplicity of actions [57 -60][85].

For these reasons the majority concluded that no justification had been shown for continuing to hold expert witnesses immune from suit for breach of duty in relation to the evidence they give in court or for the views they express in anticipation of court proceedings [61]. This decision did not affect the continued enjoyment by expert witnesses of absolute privilege from claims in defamation [62], nor did it undermine the longstanding immunity of other witnessesin respect of litigation [125].

Lord Hope and Lady Hale, dissenting, disagreed with the majority’s approach of reviewing the justification for the immunity. The rule was longstanding and its application to claims beyond defamation in respect of evidence given by any witness was confirmed by the House of Lordsin  Watson v McEwan [1905] AC 480 [141]. The question therefore was whether an exception tothis rule could be justified [161][176].

The main concern arising from the decision of the majority was the effect on disappointed litigants liable to commence worthless but time consuming claims against their experts [165][188]. The lack of a secure principled basis for removing the immunity, of a clear dividing line between what was to be affected by the removal and what was not, and of reliable evidence to indicate what the effects might be,suggested that the wiser course was to leave any reform, if needed, to Parliament [173][189].

An analysis of this judgment by Guy Mansfield QC is here.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

1 comment;

  1. Jolly good – while expert information may be useful, we are aware of ‘experts’ who have their own axe to grind and use their position as witnesses to air their own particular brand of bias and discrimination.

    With the option of being penalised for such actions, it is right that this immunity should be removed and so make them more careful about what they say and about the ‘facts’ they present.

    Obviously, there are many people who act honourably and mistakes can be made in good faith so we’re not painting everyone with the same brush but pointing out our own experiences.

    A defence may equally depend on expert witnesses but in cases where Regina -v- A N Other, the equality under law for A N Other must be recognised.

    While the concerns of this article are noted, the fact is that justice in Britain today is loaded in favour of the prosecution with abundant unlawful legislation seeking to cause as much damage to A N Other as possible so if the scales are tipped back a bit by such penalties, perhaps it will cause unnecessary, worthless and time consuming legislation to be reviewed?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: