One of the key recommendations of the Walker reforms of 2009 was to increase the responsibilities of non-executive directors. The reforms proposed that NEDs should spend up to 50% more time in their roles and have a far greater understanding of the business below board level enabling them to challenge the information supplied to them by executive members of the board more effectively.

Good hands-on NEDs found themselves in demand while less able and capable NEDs found themselves exposed. In essence a more professional and accountable board meant a more professional and accountable company, ultimately benefiting shareholders.

What has happened in the corporate world has a current analogy in the legal world; as things have improved for shareholders, things have just got better for people who use expert witnesses.

It is all because of the recent judgment in Jones v Kaney. The case earlier this year related to a personal injury claim, but its effects will be felt across the whole legal sphere from clinical negligence to corporate insolvency as immunity from suit for expert witnesses was abolished.

While the implications of the judgment are wide-ranging, the crux of the matter is that if an expert witness's incompetence causes loss to their client then they should be liable while those who are competent, honest and conscientious should have nothing to fear.

While the threat of a suit now hangs in the air, no-one is expecting floodgates to open, as any claim brought would need to be about more than small differences of opinion (or even a change of opinion in light of new evidence). The case would have to be cut and dried, as it would most likely require finding another expert to say the first one is negligent which would be a major undertaking.

However, the standard of expert witnesses will improve more generally as a result of this ruling as the "bottom tier" - hired guns - will be pushed out.

The ruling will lead to a reduction in the number of experts where expert witness work forms a small part of their practice, as professional indemnity insurance premiums go up as a result of the judgment. In other words, the pool will become smaller for those seeking to use expert witnesses.

The judgment should also make potential expert witnesses take a long hard look at whether this is an area they want to get involved in. For the person who has, historically, occasionally acted in this capacity the risk - both reputational and financial - may outweigh the reward.

The Jones v Kaney case builds on the Woolf reforms and further raises the quality bar for expert witnesses. As octogenarian non-executives who turned up for four lunches a year have made way for a new breed of hands-on non-executive, unprofessional and negligent expert witnesses will be weeded out ensuring that only those who always take proper care over their work are engaged.

Whilst this likely contraction of the expert witness pool will impact businesses, and other users of expert witnesses in the short term, the longer-term improvement in quality will outweigh any short-term frustration.

Mark Underwood is Forensic Accounting Director at BDO LLP