![Jones (appellant) v. Kaney (respondent) ([2011] UKSC 13 ... - Slaw](https://img.yumpu.com/46577625/1/500x640/jones-appellant-v-kaney-respondent-2011-uksc-13-slaw.jpg)
Jones (appellant) v. Kaney (respondent) ([2011] UKSC 13 ... - Slaw
Jones (appellant) v. Kaney (respondent) ([2011] UKSC 13 ... - Slaw
Jones (appellant) v. Kaney (respondent) ([2011] UKSC 13 ... - Slaw
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Jones</strong> (<strong>appellant</strong>) v. <strong>Kaney</strong> (<strong>respondent</strong>)([<strong>2011</strong>] <strong>UKSC</strong> <strong>13</strong>)Indexed As: <strong>Jones</strong> v. <strong>Kaney</strong>United Kingdom Supreme CourtLondon, EnglandLord Phillips, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Collins,Lord Kerr and Lord DysonMarch 30, <strong>2011</strong>.Summary:<strong>Jones</strong> was injured when his motorcycle was struck by a car driven by Bennett. <strong>Jones</strong> suedBennett and an insurer, Fortis. The action was settled. <strong>Jones</strong> claimed that his settlement wascompromised because of a joint statement signed by his expert witness (i.e., a consultantclinical psychologist (<strong>Kaney</strong>) retained by <strong>Jones</strong>) and the insurer's expert, a psychiatrist. <strong>Jones</strong>claimed that the joint statement was damaging to his claim because, inter alia, <strong>Kaney</strong> agreedwith the insurer's expert that <strong>Jones</strong> did not have post traumatic stress disorder and that he wasdeceptive and deceitful in his reporting. <strong>Kaney</strong> subsequently admitted to signing a jointstatement that did not express her views. <strong>Jones</strong> sued his expert witness, <strong>Kaney</strong>, alleging thatshe was negligent in preparing the joint statement. A motions judge struck the claim on thebasis of civil immunity of expert witnesses. <strong>Jones</strong> appealed.The United Kingdom Supreme Court, Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting, allowed theappeal.Evidence - Topic 7002.1Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness immunity - At issue in thisappeal was whether an expert witness could be sued for negligence by the client on whosebehalf the expert was retained - The United Kingdom Supreme Court reviewed the historyand current state of the law on expert witness immunity - The court concluded that theimmunity from suit for breach of duty that expert witnesses had enjoyed in relation to theirparticipation in legal proceedings was no longer justified and should be abolished - Seeparagraphs 1 to 126.Practice - Topic 218Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing -Witness immunity (incl. experts) - [See Evidence - Topic 7002.1].Cases Noticed:Hall (Arthur J.S.) & Co. v. Simons, [2002] 1 A.C. 615; 258 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [paras.1, 65, 91, 102, 145].Stanton v. Callaghan, [1998] Q.B. 75 (C.A), refd to. [paras. 1, 67, 95, 143].Cutler v. Dixon (1585), 4 Co. Rep. 14b; 76 E.R. 886, refd to. [para. 11].Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (1873), L.R. 8 Q.B. 255 (Ex. Ch.), refd to. [paras. 11, 72, <strong>13</strong>3].Hargreaves v. Bretherton, [1959] 1 Q.B. 45, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. Skinner (1772), Lofft. 54, refd to. [paras. 12, <strong>13</strong>3].Marrinan v. Vibart, [1963] 1 Q.B. 528, refd to. [paras. 12, 142].Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. <strong>13</strong>, 102, 143].Medcalf v. Mardell, [2002] UKHL 27; [2003] 1 A.C. 120, refd to. [para. <strong>13</strong>].Darker v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, [2001] 1 A.C. 435 (H.L.), refd to.[paras. 16, 82, 102, 186].Roy v. Prior, [1971] A.C. 470 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 17, 143].Watson v. M'Ewan, [1905] A.C. 480 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 19, 127, 176].Evans v. London Hospital Medical College (University of London), [1981] 1 W.L.R. 184(Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 20, 143, 147].Palmer v. Durnford, [1992] Q.B. 483, refd to. [paras. 21, 67, 90, 101, 143].Saif Ali v. Mitchell (Sydney) & Co. (A firm), [1980] A.C. 198 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 21,91, 101, 143].P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council, [1995] 2 A.C. 633; 185 N.R. 173 (H.L.), refd to.[paras. 22, 147, 161, 186].X (Minors) v. Bedfordshire County Council - see P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council.Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 27,95].General Medical Council v. Professor Sir Roy Meadow et al., [2006] EWCA Civ. <strong>13</strong>90;[2007] Q.B. 462, refd to. [paras. 39, 84, 97, 165, 177].Phillips v. Symes (No. 2), [2004] EWHC 2330; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2043, refd to. [paras. 44,165, 177].Cala Homes (South) Ltd. v. Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd., [1995] F.S.R. 818 (Ch. D.),refd to. [para. 48].Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, [1982] A.C. 529 (H.L.), refd to.[para. 60].Taylor et al. v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office et al., [1999] 2 A.C. 177; 233 N.R. 172(H.L.), refd to. [paras. 66, 1<strong>13</strong>, 144].D'Orta-Ekenaike v. Victoria Legal Aid, [2005] HCA 12; 223 C.L.R. 1; 214 A.L.R. 92, refdto. [paras. 75, <strong>13</strong>3].Lai v. Chamberlains, [2007] 2 N.Z.L.R. 7 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].Reynolds v. Kingston Police Services Board et al. (2007), 221 O.A.C. 216; 2007 ONCA166, refd to. [para. 75].Sovereign Motor Inns Pty. Ltd. v. Howarth Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., [2003] NSWSC 1120,refd to. [para. 75].James v. Medical Board of South Australia (2006), 95 S.A.S.R. 445 (Aust.), refd to. [para.75].Commonwealth v. Griffiths (2007), 245 A.L.R. 172 (N.S.W.C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].Carnahan v. Coates (1990), 71 D.L.R.(4th) 464 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 75, 172].Varghese v. Landau, [2004] O.T.C. 97; 2004 CanLII 5084 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].Deep v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 5248;2010 ONSC 5248, refd to. [para. 75].Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (No. 3), [1982] A.C. 888 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 76].Blackwell v. Wyeth (2009), 971 A.2d 235 (Md. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 77].Marrogi v. Howard (2002), 805 So.2d 1118 (La.), refd to. [para. 77].Briscoe v. La Hue (1983), 460 U.S. 325 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 78, 157].
Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Associates (1998), 711 A.2d 251 (N.H.), refd to. [para. 78].Dalton v. Miller (1999), 984 P.2d 666 (Colo. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 78].McNall v. Frus (2002), 784 N.E.2d 238 (Ill. App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens and Assoc. Engineers Inc. (1989), 776 P.2d 666 (Wash. Sup. Ct.),refd to. [para. 79].Mattco Forge Inc. v. Young (Arthur) & Co. (1992), 6 Cal. Rptr.2d 781 (Cal. C.A. 2nd Dist.Div. 3), refd to. [para. 80].Lambert v. Carneghi (2008), 70 Cal. Rptr.3d 626, refd to. [para. 80].Murphy v. AA Matthews (1992), 841 S.W.2d 671 (Mo.), refd to. [para. 80].LLMD of Michigan Inc. v. Jackson-Cross Co. (1999), 740 A.2d 186 (Pa.), refd to. [para.80].Pollock v. Panjabi (2000), 781 A.2d 518 (Conn. Super. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].Boyes-Bogie v. Horvitz & Associates (2001), 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 208 (Sup. Ct.), refd to.[para. 80].Abinger (Lord) v. Ashton (1873), 17 L.R. Eq. 358, refd to. [para. 83].Boland v. Yates Property Corp. Pty. Ltd. (1999), 74 A.L.J.R. 209 (Aust. H.C.), refd to.[para. 105].Williamson v. Umphray and Robertson (1890), 17 R. 905, refd to. [paras. <strong>13</strong>3, 159].Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (1875), L.R. 7 H.L. 744 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. <strong>13</strong>4, 159].Primrose v. Waterston (1902), 4 F. 783, refd to. [para. <strong>13</strong>5].Munster v. Lamb (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 588 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. <strong>13</strong>6, 159].A.B. v. C.D. (1904), 7 F. 72 (Ct. Sess.), refd to. [para. <strong>13</strong>8].M'Ewan v. Watson (1905), 12 S.L.T. 599 (H.L.), refd to. [para. <strong>13</strong>8].Silcott v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1996), 8 Admin. L.R. 633 (C.A.Civ.), refd to. [para. 143].Hughes v. Lloyds Bank plc, [1998] P.I.Q.R. P98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].Raiss v. Palmano, [2001] P.N.L.R. 21, refd to. [para. 148].National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance Co.; Ship Ikarian Reefer,Re, [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 155].Ship Ikarian Reefer, Re - see National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. PrudentialAssurance Co.Whitehouse v. Jordan, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 155].Pollivitte Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. plc, [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 379, refd to.[para. 155].J. (A Minor) (Expert Evidence), [1991] F.C.R. 193, refd to. [para. 155].E. O'K. v. D.K., [2001] 3 I.R. 568, refd to. [para. 172].Austin v. London Borough Council of Southwark, [2010] N.R. Uned. 103; [2010] <strong>UKSC</strong>28; [2010] 3 W.L.R. 144, refd to. [para. 175].Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, refd to. [para.180].J.D. v. East Berkshire Community NHS Trust, [2003] EWCA Civ. 1151; [2004] Q.B. 558(C.A.), refd to. [para. 186].Authors and Works Noticed:Cane, Peter, Tort Law and Economic Interests (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 237 [para. 35].Dalrymple, James, Viscount of Stair - see Stair's Institutions of the Law of Scotland (2nd
Ed. 1693).Edis, Andrew, Privilege and Immunity: Problems of Expert Evidence (2007), 26 C.J.Q. 40,generally [para. 128].Goodall, The Expert Witness: Partisan with a Conscience (1990), J. Chartered Institute ofArbitrators, generally [para. 48].House of Lords, Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent), [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234, generally[para. 175].Jurs, Andrew W., The Rationale for Expert Immunity or Liability Exposure and Case Lawsince Briscoe: Reasserting Immunity Protection for Friendly Expert Witnesses (2007-2008), 38 U. Mem. L.R. 49, generally [para 81].Stair's Institutions of the Law of Scotland (2nd Ed. 1963), vol. 4, c. 1, p. 5 [para. <strong>13</strong>3].United Kingdom, Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to giveEvidence in Civil Claims (2005), para. 4.1 [para. 97].Woolf, Harry Kenneth, Access to Justice Final Report (1996), c. <strong>13</strong>, paras. 3, 25, 27, 30[para. 154].Counsel:Roger Ter Haar, Q.C., and Daniel Shapiro (Instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP), for the<strong>appellant</strong>;Patrick Lawrence, Q.C., and Charles Phipps (Instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP),for the <strong>respondent</strong>.Agents:Not disclosed.This appeal was heard on January 11 and 12, <strong>2011</strong>, before Lord Phillips, President, LordHope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson,of the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The decision of the court was delivered on March 30,<strong>2011</strong>, when the following opinions were filed:Lord Phillips - see paragraphs 1 to 62;Lord Brown - see paragraphs 63 to 69;Lord Collins - see paragraphs 70 to 86;Lord Kerr - see paragraphs 87 to 94;Lord Dyson - see paragraphs 95 to 126;Lord Hope, dissenting - see paragraphs 127 to 174;Lady Hale, dissenting - see paragraphs 175 to 190.
Change language