This Practice Note considers the personal liability of expert witnesses in civil proceedings for example, experts may be reported to professional bodies and regulators. It looks at an expert’s immunity from suit in relation to an action brought by their own client (considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v Kaney) or an opposing party (considering Baxendale-Walker v Middleton), the impact of, and background to the decision in Kaney, non-party costs orders against experts in breach, and committal and contempt of court proceedings where an expert witness makes a false statement. It also offers practical tips on expert witness immunity. It is vital that experts are made aware of their duties as experts and potential experts and comply with them. A failure to do so may have a various consequences, including affecting the weight given to the expert evidence, costs consequences in the proceedings and the expert evidence not being admitted. For more information on experts’ failure to comply with their duties, see Practice Notes: Duties of an expert—Failure of experts to comply

This Practice Note deals with what constitutes a public authority, its significance and the distinction between public and private acts. Public authorities undertake public functions which can give rise to a public liability. When services are provided to members of the public, eg maintaining a highway, the public authority owes the public a duty of care. The public authority can also be exposed to a private liability, eg when employing an individual. Public authorities therefore owe both a private and public liability. What is a public authority? A public authority is some manifestation of the state that exercises a public function. The distinction between a private body and a public authority has become increasingly important since the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) because HRA 1998 prohibits public authorities from acting incompatibly with any convention right under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The test for determining whether a body is a public authority may be wider under HRA 1998 than it is for the purposes of judicial review. Bodies

This Practice Note considers section 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which allows certain parties rights to enforce against a trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) in relation to misfeasance or breach of trust. For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: Liability of trustee in bankruptcy under section 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986—key cases. IA 1986, s 304 is similar to IA 1986, s 212 which provides a summary remedy against delinquent directors, liquidators, administrative receivers, company officers and other specified persons (see Practice Note: Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986). The applicant Applications under IA 1986, s 304 may be made by: • the official receiver (OR) • the Secretary of State • a creditor of the bankrupt, or • the bankrupt (whether or not there is, or is likely to be, a surplus due to be paid to them for the purpose of a final distribution) Permission Note that the leave of the court

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content on the liability of a trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) under section 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which allows certain parties rights to enforce against a trustee in relation to misfeasance or breach of trust. The cases are divided by topic area and include: • permission • liability • trustee immunity For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: Liability of trustee in bankruptcy under section 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Permission Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content McFadzean v Martinez [2026] EWHC 426 (Ch) 27 February 2026 When deciding whether to grant leave to make a claim for compensation against a trustee under IA 1986, s 304, the court has to consider whether or not the applicant has shown a reasonably meritorious cause of action, reasonably likely to result in a benefit to the estate.The court will dismiss the applicant’s application for leave

Sometimes referred to as the ‘employer’s share of the difference’, the liability share represents the employer's share of a scheme's total buy-out deficit, as calculated for section 75 debt purposes.

This Practice Note focuses on liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971) in relation to non-dangerous animals. Separate provisions apply in certain situations, including dogs injuring livestock and liability for trespassing livestock and horses. The claimant must prove that the defendant was the keeper of the animal which caused the injury. Strict liability may arise under AA 1971, s 2(2) where specific statutory conditions are met; however, the conditions are often difficult to interpret. These conditions are set out in this Practice Note together with links to the key judgments and relevant provisions of AA 1971. Cats, dogs, cattle, sheep and horses do not belong to dangerous species for these purposes because their species are commonly domesticated in the British Isles. An individual animal may nevertheless have dangerous characteristics giving rise to liability under AA 1971, s 2(2). For further guidance, see Practice Note: Liability under the Animals Act 1971—dangerous species—Which animals are classified as belonging to a dangerous species? If there is strict liability,

This Practice Note explains a keeper’s liability for injury caused by animals of a dangerous species. An animal is classified as belonging to a dangerous species if it is not commonly domesticated in the British Isles and when fully grown may cause severe damage unless restrained. There is strict liability for this class of animal. The Practice Note also clarifies the definition of a keeper and examines liability issues arising when animals are abandoned. The Animals Act 1971 is referred to in this Practice Note as AA 1971. Strict liability A keeper of an animal which belongs to a dangerous species is strictly liable under AA 1971, s 2(1) for any damage that animal causes. All the claimant needs to prove is that the defendant was the keeper of the animal and that the animal caused injury. Strict liability means that the claimant does not need to prove fault. The keeper is responsible for injury

Liability-driven investing (LDI) is an investment philosophy which aims to help defined benefit pension schemes establish a risk framework from which they can measure investment risk and set investment strategy.

The House of Lords Liaison Committee has proposed the establishment of a Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, the proposal will now make its way to the floor of the House for approval. If established, the new committee would aim to complement the efforts of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The new Committee would be reviewed at the end of 2026.

Law360: The UK's third-largest political party vowed on 10 June 2024 to raise taxes on the country's wealthiest individuals if it wins the next election, in a bid to raise £5bn for the National Health Service.

A defamatory statement made or conveyed in some permanent form and relating to someone other than the person to whom it relates.

TMT analysis: The court dismissed the actor and director Noel Clarke’s claim in libel against the publisher of the Guardian newspaper. The case concerned eight articles published by the Guardian. The first article was titled ‘“Sexual predator”: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women’, which the Guardian admitted had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to Mr Clarke’s reputation under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). The Guardian denied that serious harm was caused by the remaining seven articles. The court determined the issue of serious harm in respect of the other seven articles, and the Guardian’s defences of i) truth under DA 2013, s 2, and ii) publication on matter of public interest under DA 2013, s 4. The Guardian succeeded on all the disputed issues: the remaining articles did not cause Mr Clarke serious reputational harm, and the articles were substantially true and published on a matter of public interest. Written by Hector Penny, barrister at 5RB.