The Supreme Court has ruled that expert witnesses are longer immune from being sued for negligence in a landmark decision that will see longstanding legislation overturned.

The ruling means that experts providing advice on cases are now liable if their advice is deemed negligent, removing the immunity from suit for breach of duty.

The decision resulted from the case of Jones v Kaney, which concerned a 2001 road traffic accident. The appellant, Jones, lost out on damages due to advice given by expert psychologist Kaney that Jones had exaggerated his post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after the accident.

Jones subsequently brought proceedings for negligence, with the Supreme Court allowing the appeal in a judgment handed down by a panel of seven chaired by Lord Phillips.

Hill Dickinson litigation partner Paul Walton and Crown Office Chambers' Roger ter Haar QC acted for Jones, while Berrymans Lace Mawer professional indemnity partner Jason Nash and Four New Square's Patrick Lawrence QC represented Kaney.

Walton said: "This issue has been going on for a number of years and it really came down to a case of public policy. We saw barristers' immunity removed a decade ago, so it was really time to bring things up to date with this next step."

Two members of the Supreme Court panel, Lord Hope and Lady Hale, dissented due to the belief that reforms should be left to Parliament.

Hogan Lovells board member partner Nicholas Cheffings said: "I'm not surprised that two of the judges thought that the question of reform was a matter for Parliament and not for them but the decision of the majority to remove immunity is, in my view, clearly the correct one.

"In our modern society, it is difficult to justify the proposition that people who are being well paid for their expert services can be allowed to walk away from the consequences of their incompetence."

For more, see Expert witnesses no longer immune from being sued from the UK Human Rights Blog.