Expert immunity ruling – analysis by Guy Mansfield QC

5 April 2011 by

The decision of the Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney (see earlier post by Rosalind English) removes the immunity previously enjoyed by those who have acted as experts from suit by their former clients.  To understand the significance of the decision, a number of important points should be kept in mind.

  • The immunity from suit for damages for a former client in respect of the retained expert’s activity in a civil action was already a limited one. In Palmer v Durnford Ford, [1992] QB 483, the High Court held that an expert witness was not immune from suit in respect of work done primarily for the purpose of advising the client.
  • Expert witnesses have, since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Meadow v General Medical Council [2007] QB 462, been liable to disciplinary sanction in respect of their activity and evidence as experts in courts and tribunals. That flows from the public interest in the fitness to practice of the professional (particularly, but not only, a medical practitioner).
  • The High Court in Phillips v Symes (No. 2) [2005] 1 WLR 2043 established that an expert witness was susceptible to the court’s jurisdiction under Section 51 (1) and (3) of the SCA 1981 to a personal costs order in respect of costs of litigation wrongly incurred or thrown away as a result of inappropriate evidence as an expert witness.
  • A claim for damages by a former client against a retained expert arising out of criminal proceedings resulting in the claimant’s conviction will be struck out as an abuse of process unless the convicted client first overturns the conviction on appeal: Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Constabulary [1982] AC 529, see paragraph 60of the judgment of Lord Phillips.
  • The decision does not dilute witness immunity from suit for defamation as a result of anything said in court.
  • The decision does not lay open the expert witness to an action for damages by the former opposing party.
  • The expert’s duties are owed only to  the court (remedy by means of personal costs order) ; the former client  (remedy in damages for breach of duty of care); the professional standards of any professional body to whom the expert is answerable (remedy by way of professional disciplinary proceedings).
  • These remedies are not mutually exclusive. An expert who is guilty of seriously egregious conduct might legitimately be exposed to a costs liability to other parties and damages to his client and disciplinary proceedings with sanction by the relevant professional body.  But it should be remembered that:
  1. The threshold for a personal costs’ liability is likely to be high, akin to the criteria for a wasted costs order.  If the client does not waive privilege, the expert will have the benefit of any doubt where the facts are not clear.
  2. Negligence is not easy to prove against an expert witness, especially in relation to what he or she says in the heat of battle in court.
  3. The threshold for a disciplinary sanction is likely to be “misconduct” albeit this can be no higher than negligence in certain circumstances.

The decision removes the uncertainty which followed Stanton v Callaghan [2000]1 QB 75 (applying Palmer) as to which side of the line the activities of an expert fell:  was it (i) “preliminary to his giving evidence in court judged perhaps by the principal purpose for which the work was done” (not actionable under Stanton) or (ii) “work done for the principal purpose of advising the client” (actionable since Palmer).  But the argument that professional indemnity insurance is available is not going to be conclusive in persuading some experts to continue such work.  Professional persons indeed engage in activities where the possibility of being sued is higher than it is in relation to undertaking the role of an expert in litigation. But the crunch will be whether “the game is worth the candle”.

The crucial point is that practising as an expert witness is a discretionary activity.  The practitioner can and will abandon it if the risk of being sued and the premiums are too high.  He/she will stick to clinical practice or whatever.   Short of retirement, the professional has to practice his/her profession.  So Lord Dyson’s analogy (paragraph 117) with obstetrics and the willingness of obstetricians to continue their work is a weak one.   Most obstetrics’ accidents now arise within the NHS.  Clinicians are covered for this by their employers.  In private medicine, however, the level of insurance premiums for obstetrics is now considered prohibitive by many practitioners.

But even if there were to be a rash of well-founded claims against local authorities (LAs) arising out of allegedly misconceived care proceedings, for example, it seems to the writer unlikely that local authorities would rush to sue the paediatricians who gave evidence.  Leaving aside the legal obstacles, LAs would thereafter find it hard, if not impossible, to find others prepared so to act in future.   Further, such experts engaged by LAs will not by this decision be rendered actionable at the suit of the disappointed parent or child.  As for parents who lose the right to care for a child, who wish to blame their retained expert, they will face a major evidential and causation hurdle save in obvious cases.  It will be hard to obtain legal funding.

Experts who speak the truth or whose opinion evidence is founded on reasonable grounds have nothing to fear.  Those whose evidence is not so grounded are, in clear cases, already open to disciplinary sanction.  Why should they not be liable to compensate former clients?

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

Related posts:


  1. Law Think says:

    Absolutely. I do not really buy the ‘chilling effect’ on expert witnesses argument. Firstly, if anything it will encourage experts to point out the limits in their investigations and so improve the quality of their evidence.

    Secondly, you are not going to be sued just for being mistaken. To be negligent you have to have fallen pretty low beyond the expected standard. Why should an expert be protected from this?

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Many thanks to Mr Guy Mansfield QC for this explanation. Regrettably, I suspect that many an expert will not be persuaded. Too many potential pitfalls appear to exist. Experts can be expected to withdraw (it is a “discretionary activity”) and insurers (if they touch this area at all) will demand massive premiums which any remaining experts will pass on via their bills. There was much to be said for the minority judgments in this instance.

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 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 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 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 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 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 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 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: