Expert witnesses lose immunity

Supreme Court rules in Jones v Kaney

 

By a majority of 5 : 2 (Lord Hope and Baroness Hale dissenting) the Supreme Court has allowed the appellant's challenge to the rule that an expert witness enjoyed immunity from any form of civil action arising from the evidence he or she gave in the course of proceedings.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Phillips said that the general rule was that every wrong should have a remedy and that any exception to this rule must be justified as being necessary in the public interest and kept under review.  The primary rationale for the immunity was a concern that an expert witness might be reluctant to give evidence contrary to his client’s interest, in breach of his duty to the court, if there was a risk that this might lead his client to sue him. In common with advocates, however, there was no conflict between the duty that the expert had to provide services to his client with reasonable skill and care, and the duty he owed to the court. The evidence did not suggest that the immunity was necessary to secure an adequate supply of expert witnesses. The removal of immunity for advocates had not diminished their readiness to perform their duty, nor had there been a proliferation of vexatious claims or multiplicity of actions.

To read the judgment in full click here.

 

Date Added: 30th March 2011