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

(2012-13) 4(1) King's Student Law Review 4

Oxford Student Legal Studies Paper 02/2013

18 Pages Posted: 4 Mar 2013 Last revised: 19 Sep 2013

See all articles by Chintan Chandrachud

Chintan Chandrachud

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

Date Written: February 5, 2013

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.

Suggested Citation

Chandrachud, Chintan, Two Years Later: Revisiting the Supreme Court's Decision to Eliminate Expert Immunity (February 5, 2013). (2012-13) 4(1) King's Student Law Review 4; Oxford Student Legal Studies Paper 02/2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2212249 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2212249

Chintan Chandrachud (Contact Author)

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP ( email )

One Fleet Place
London, EC4M 7RA
United Kingdom
WC1V 6LJ (Fax)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
72
Abstract Views
374
rank
339,955
PlumX Metrics