IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i1p150-157..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Samantha Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust v Mr Firas Jamil

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Stanton

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Stanton, 2022. "Samantha Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust v Mr Firas Jamil," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 150-157.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:150-157.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:150-157.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.