Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP
Expert evidence is admissible where it will assist the court, the witness has the necessary knowledge and experience, is impartial, and there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin it.
Facts
Ms Kennedy, a home carer, slipped on an icy path while visiting a client and was injured. She sued her employer for negligence and breach of statutory duty, arguing that it should have provided her with anti slip attachments for her footwear. At the trial in Scotland, she relied on the evidence of an expert in health and safety, and the question arose whether his evidence was admissible and what weight it should be given.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court allowed her appeal and restored the trial judge's decision in her favour. Lord Reed and Lord Hodge set out four considerations which govern the admissibility of skilled evidence: whether the proposed evidence will assist the court in its task; whether the witness has the necessary knowledge and experience; whether the witness is impartial in his or her presentation and assessment of the evidence; and whether there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the expert's evidence. Skilled witnesses can give evidence of fact as well as opinion. The expert's evidence had been admissible, and the employer had been negligent.
Related cases on witnesses, identification and expert evidence
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473
- R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
