Samantha Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust v Mr Firas Jamil

Abstract In Samantha Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Trust v Mr Firas Jamal (Thimmaya), Mr Jamil, an expert witness acting for the Claimant in a clinical negligence action, was ordered to pay part of the Defendant’s costs, amounting to over £88,000. The court determined that his conduct as an expert had b...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical law review 2022-02, Vol.30 (1), p.150-157
1. Verfasser: Stanton, Catherine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract In Samantha Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Trust v Mr Firas Jamal (Thimmaya), Mr Jamil, an expert witness acting for the Claimant in a clinical negligence action, was ordered to pay part of the Defendant’s costs, amounting to over £88,000. The court determined that his conduct as an expert had been ‘improper, unreasonable, or negligent’, thus enabling the court to make a third-party costs order against him. Although the case must have raised alarm amongst medical experts, the facts of the case show that it concerned a very unusual set of circumstances. Additionally, the more recent case of Walker and Walker v Tui UK Ltd v Dr Timothy Leigh (Walker), also discussed below, suggests that the threshold to be applied in determining whether costs orders should be made against experts will be higher than that applied in Thimmaya. Both cases serve as a reminder of the duties owed by experts to the court.
ISSN:1464-3790
1464-3790
DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwab030