Jones v Kaney in Contract Law 2016 - Dr Mark Burgin
21/01/17. Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains how new terms in Expert’s contracts will import the ruling in Jones v Kaney (1) into personal injury work.
Until 2011 it was thought that experts were immune to the criticism that they had acted negligently.
Solicitors have long complained that a few experts make mistakes in their work, refuse to make reasonable amendments and delay answering part 35 questions.
Jones v Kaney can be used to challenge these behaviours by asking for the expert to indemnify the solicitor for losses.
MROs have always included in their contract a section where the expert agrees to indemnify the MRO against any losses from breach of the warranties.
These contracts now include negligent performance or non-performance as grounds for indemnity.
This article considers some of the possible circumstances where this contractual version of Jones v Kaney can be applied.
Within any complex document there will inevitably occur typographical errors in the form of spelling mistakes, punctuation errors, templated sentences which have not been removed, transcription errors and numerical errors.
These errors can be used as evidence of poor checking and lack of care and a consequent loss of confidence in the report as a whole.
Most errors do not alter the expert’s opinion and there is an argument that for low cost personal injury reports these errors could only be prevented at disproportionate cost.
At present if a third party in making an offer was to point to errors in the medical report it is likely that...