Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q6275352> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 46 of
46
with 100 triples per page.
- Q6275352 subject Q6995634.
- Q6275352 subject Q6996208.
- Q6275352 subject Q8200959.
- Q6275352 abstract "Template:Infobox court caseJones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 is a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on whether expert witnesses retained by a party in litigation can be sued for professional negligence, or whether they have the benefit of immunity from suit. The case involved a psychologist (Kaney) instructed as an expert witness in a personal injury claim, who was said to have negligently signed a statement of matters agreed with the expert instructed by the opposing side, in which she made a number of concessions that weakened the claim considerably. As a result, according to the injured claimant (Jones), he had to settle the claim for much less than he would have obtained had his expert not been careless. To succeed in the claim, he had to overturn an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had decided that preparation of a joint statement with the other side's expert was covered by immunity from suit. Kaney therefore succeeded in getting the claim struck out before trial on an application heard by Mr Justice Blake in the High Court of Justice. The judge issued a certificate allowing the claimant to "leapfrog" the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court to appeal against his decision.The Supreme Court, by a majority of five to two, decided that expert witnesses were not immune in the law of England and Wales from claims in tort or contract for matters connected with their participation in legal proceedings. This reversed a line of authority dating back 400 years. The case considered the narrow issue, namely whether preparation of a joint statement by experts was immune from suit, and the wider public policy issue of whether litigants should be able to sue experts that they had instructed for breach of duty. There was discussion about whether removing the immunity would have a "chilling effect" on the willingness of experts to participate in court proceedings, although judges on both sides of the decision agreed that there was no empirical evidence on the point. Lord Phillips, a member of the majority, compared the situation of expert witnesses with that of advocates, on the basis that both owed duties to clients and to the court. Advocates' immunity from claims in negligence had been removed in 2001 in Hall v Simons. The change, he said, had not led to an increase in vexatious claims or a reduction in the performance of duties owed by advocates to the court. Lord Hope, in the minority, said that experts and advocates had different functions and so disagreed with the comparison. He also pointed out that English law would now be different from Scots law on this issue.The judgment has been called a "landmark ruling" by the Law Society Gazette, with lawyers saying that the decision was expected but long overdue. One barrister, Clare Montgomery QC, looked at the implications for other participants in the legal process, commenting that the "process of whittling away the scope of the immunity" that they have "appears to be far from over". Other commentators were concerned that the decision would lead to reduction in the number of expert witnesses prepared to become involved with some particularly sensitive areas, such as child abuse cases. Lady Hale, the other dissenting judge, said that changing the law in this way was "irresponsible" and said that the position should instead be considered by the Law Commission and Parliament.".
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1058404.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q11149.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1122261.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1137751.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1138780.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1533366.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1579315.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q160070.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1617747.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q16997447.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1699865.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1809152.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1818985.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q18205254.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q1972557.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q202387.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q2287419.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q335951.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q4621560.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q5123253.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q5261062.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q5378539.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q6317200.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q6502999.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q663272.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q6817401.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q6995634.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996208.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7009742.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7233649.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7241377.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7248086.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7437840.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q764939.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7746393.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q7746458.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q8200959.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q908568.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q908639.
- Q6275352 wikiPageWikiLink Q912458.
- Q6275352 comment "Template:Infobox court caseJones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 is a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on whether expert witnesses retained by a party in litigation can be sued for professional negligence, or whether they have the benefit of immunity from suit.".
- Q6275352 label "Jones v Kaney".