Last Updated：2022/12/24
In Jones v Kaney [2010] EWHC 61 (Q.B.) at first instance, the issue was whether the claimant's psychologist in a personal injury claim was negligent because in a joint written statement with the other side's expert, she had resiled from her diagnosis of PTSD without comment or amendment of her report, greatly damaging the claimant's case. The claimant sued in negligence, the judge was constrained by the authorities, but granted a certificate under s. 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to leapfrog the case to the Supreme Court.
音声機能が動作しない場合はこちらをご確認ください
Edit Histories（0）
Source Sentence
In
Jones
v
Kaney
[2010]
EWHC
61
(Q.B.)
at
first
instance,
the
issue
was
whether
the
claimant's
psychologist
in
a
personal
injury
claim
was
negligent
because
in
a
joint
written
statement
with
the
other
side's
expert,
she
had
resiled
from
her
diagnosis
of
PTSD
without
comment
or
amendment
of
her
report,
greatly
damaging
the
claimant's
case.
The
claimant
sued
in
negligence,
the
judge
was
constrained
by
the
authorities,
but
granted
a
certificate
under
s.
12
of
the
Administration
of
Justice
Act
1960
to
leapfrog
the
case
to
the
Supreme
Court.
