Jones v Kaney

The case of Jones v Kaney involved an appeal by the claimant, Mr Jones, against the decision of the High Court to strike out his claim for damages against the respondent, Dr Kaney, a consultant clinical psychologist. The High Court had dismissed the claim on the basis that Dr Kaney enjoyed immunity from suit for her preparation of a joint statement with another expert witness in the context of personal injury litigation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that expert witnesses do not enjoy immunity from suit for breach of duty in respect of their participation in legal proceedings. The Court considered the purposes of the immunity, the scope of the immunity, and whether the immunity was justified. The Court concluded that the immunity was not justified, as it would not prevent expert witnesses from providing their services, nor would it ensure that they gave full and frank evidence to the court. The Court also considered the effects of the immunity, and whether expert witnesses could be compared to advocates. The Court found that expert witnesses had more in common with advocates than with witnesses of fact, and that the immunity of expert witnesses was not justified. The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the immunity from suit for breach of duty that expert witnesses had enjoyed in relation to their participation in legal proceedings should be abolished.