Two Years Later: Revisiting the Supreme Court's Decision to Eliminate Expert Immunity

Abstract

This paper examines, with the benefit of hindsight, the UK Supreme Court's decision (Jones v Kaney) to eliminate the immunity of experts from professional negligence claims brought by their clients. Some of the questions raised in the paper include: was the majority correct in deciding that the rationale for expert immunity was attenuated? Did the justifications offered by the majority warrant the elimination of the ‘long established rule’ that disappointed litigants cannot turn against their ‘friendly experts’? Has this decision produced unexpected consequences for the English civil justice system? The analysis will seek to establish that although on point of principle the Supreme Court’s decision was the correct one, some of its justifications were problematic. Further, the decision could have some unexpected consequences for the civil justice system.