header-logo header-logo

08 April 2022 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7974 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Expert witness: The indisputable expert?

77734
A sigh of relief for expert witnesses: Mark Solon welcomes the High Court’s judgment in Radia v Marks
  • The High Court has dismissed a professional negligence claim against a medical expert, finding that the expert’s duty of care did not extend to protecting the claimant from the risk of an adverse credibility finding.

The 2011 Supreme Court case of Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] All ER (D) 346 (Mar) is rarely far from an expert’s mind, reversing 400 years of history by deciding that expert witnesses are not immune from being sued in both contract and negligence. However, experts may breathe a sigh of relief as the High Court in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB), [2022] All ER (D) 92 (Jan) dismissed a claim against a medical expert who gave evidence as a joint expert in an employment tribunal case, highlighting the difficulties of successfully suing an expert for professional negligence.

What are the facts of this case?

In 2015, the claimant took his former

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll