UK: Liability Of Expert Witnesses Post Jones v Kaney

Last Updated: 10 November 2011
Article by Stefan Cucos

Prior to March 2011, expert professionals enjoyed a partial immunity from negligence actions in circumstances where they were acting as expert witnesses. The case of Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 means that if an expert provides negligent expert evidence that expert can be sued those instructing him. Whilst time will tell as to the full impact of this change, the implications of this decision will affect not only established experts but also the litigants on whose behalf they act.

Jones v Kaney is about the immunity of experts. Prior to this case, experts were generally protected from being sued by disgruntled parties to litigation because they enjoyed a long-established rule which said that, except for reasons of bad faith, no witness could be sued for anything said or done in the ordinary course of court proceedings.1 The implication since Jones v Kaney is that a client can seek redress from an expert that has acted negligently or dishonestly.

In Jones v Kaney, Dr Kaney was retained by Mr Jones as an expert clinical psychologist. Mr Jones had been knocked off his motorbike by a car whose driver, Mr Bennett, was drunk, uninsured and driving whilst disqualified. Mr Bennett admitted liability. The only matter for the court to decide on was the level of damages Mr Jones could recover.

Dr Kaney duly produced her own report on Mr Jones's condition. It concluded that Mr Jones had suffered from depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD").

A consultant psychiatrist, Dr El-Assra, instructed by the relevant insurer also examined Mr Jones and concluded that he was exaggerating his symptoms. The experts were ordered by the court to prepare a joint statement of matters on which they agreed and those on which they did not agree. These points were discussed between the experts by telephone. Following their telephone conversation Dr El-Assra prepared a draft joint statement which he sent to Dr Kaney who signed it without any amendment or comment at all. The joint statement of the experts contradicted Dr Kaney's previous evidence and concluded that Mr Jones was "deceptive and deceitful" and that he was no longer suffering from PTSD.

The case settled out of court but for far less than Mr Jones might otherwise have recovered had Dr Kaney not signed that joint statement. Mr Jones sued Dr Kaney whose defence relied solely on a claim of expert immunity. Her defence prevailed at first instance. However, the judge gave permission for Mr Jones to leap-frog the Court of Appeal and appeal direct to the Supreme Court.

The majority in the Supreme Court (5 to 2) concluded that in deciding the question of expert liability the appropriate starting point should not be the presumption that expert immunity must be maintained unless it could be shown to be unjustified. Instead, it was held that for every wrong there should be a remedy, and on that basis, an expert had to justify the existence of any immunity on which his defence relied as being in the public interest. If he could not justify that immunity, and it could be shown that he had acted negligently or dishonestly, then it would be open to his client to seek the appropriate redress.

In Jones v Kaney the Supreme Court recognised that in dispensing with expert immunity in certain cases a number of concerns arose. The main reason given in support of expert immunity had been the long-held concern that an expert witness might, in breach of his duty to the court, be reluctant to give evidence contrary to his client's interests if there was a risk that this might lead the expert witness' client to make a claim against him. However, the Court saw no conflict between an expert's duty to provide the services of an expert to the client with reasonable skill and care on the one hand whilst on the other exercising its duty to the court to help the court on those matters within its expertise. This duty "overrides any obligation" to the person from whom experts have received instructions or by whom they are paid.2

The Court also considered the so-called "chilling effect", where experts, who would previously have been prepared to give evidence, might become harder to find because of the possibility of vexatious claims from their clients. The Court decided that immunity was not necessary to ensure an adequate supply of expert witnesses and cited the decision in Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 which effectively removed the comparable immunity for advocates from negligence claims brought by their own clients. Hall v Simons had not led to fewer advocates being ready to perform their duty and the Court considered that Jones v Kaney would not diminish the appetites of experts to perform theirs in the future.

Whilst Jones v Kaney has abolished the principle of "complete" expert immunity, the Supreme Court's decision does not affect the absolute privilege defence open to expert witnesses from defamation claims, nor does it undermine the long-established immunity of other witnesses in litigation. This is principally because the Court saw a marked difference between holding an expert witness liable for breach of duty to its retaining client and the witness of fact who may not owe a duty of care and may not be giving evidence voluntarily in any event. 

Nonetheless, Jones v Kaney does hold certain implications for parties to litigation who retain experts. First, it is vital the client establish that the expert witness has sufficient professional indemnity insurance to cover expert witness activities. In the vast majority of cases well-established experts will have the requisite cover and this issue should not arise. At the same time, the under-skilled expert may be deterred which should be regarded as a good thing. However, the cost of engaging the services of experts could rise.

Secondly, clients can now expect experts to limit or exclude their liability altogether through contractual means. Provided those terms comply with Unfair Contract Terms legislation, courts may uphold them. For the client and his solicitors it may be necessary to accept some exclusions of liability up to the amount of reasonable PI cover.

Thirdly, the removal of immunity means that experts will need to entirely at ease with their given opinion. At the same time they will need to be alive to the potential pressure from clients or solicitors or other the experts involved in the case to change their initial views. In giving her evidence during the course of the first-instance trial, it emerged that Dr Kaney had not seen Dr El-Assra's reports when they held their crucial telephone discussion. Dr Kaney had nonetheless felt under pressure to sign the joint statement even though her view was that Mr Jones had been "evasive" rather than "deceptive" and that Mr Jones had indeed suffered from PTSD but that this was now resolved. As we can now see, this approach was simply not the approach for which an expert is paid and it resulted in a satisfactory settlement for Mr Jones and lengthy court proceedings for Dr Kaney.

The 2011 case of Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and Security PLC3 describes just how far experts can deviate from what is expected of them under their duty to the court to furnish the court with specialist knowledge. It also provides an example of what can happen when experts "fall out" over deeply entrenched opposing attitudes. This led to the experts abandoning their joint statements during the course of litigation which were only provided part-way through the trial. However, because the experts were too bullish in their respective approaches to the litigation they could not focus on the issues between the parties and were rightly criticised for being unable to do so. The evidence they eventually gave was of little or no use to the court in any event.

Given the decision in Jones v Kaney, an expert instructed in litigation should now be more cautious when it comes to expert meetings and, in particular, in signing a joint expert report without briefing their client fully on any proposed departure from their earlier opinions. The opinions of experts may now take less unequivocal and more circumspect standpoints so that the "unacceptably partisan" attitudes adopted in Trebor Bassett become a thing of the past. This need not necessarily be a bad thing for clients if it leads to parties adopting less entrenched positions and actually finding greater common ground disputes easier and quicker to resolve.


The Jones v Kaney decision has changed the landscape for experts as providers of providers of expert opinion evidence who also engage in without prejudice discussions on behalf of their clients with other experts. Professional experts who once enjoyed immunity for claims of negligence must now just why they should continue to enjoy that immunity where their negligence has caused a loss to their client. Many experts will feel justifiably concerned at the removal of their immunity, and the result of may be that rather than not providing expert services at all their views will now be less trenchant at the outset of a case than previously seen.


1 Dawkins v Rokesby (1873) LR QB 255

2 Civil Procedure Rules, Pt 35.10

3 EWHC 1936 (TCC)

To see further articles and papers written by the Fenwick Elliott team, please go to

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Stefan Cucos
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.