The Supremes and witness immunity

Another great legal story that has implications not just for the property world.

The High Court has asked the Supreme Court to look again at the issue of immunity of expert witnesses from legal claims.

The case involves consultant clinical psychologist Sue Kaney who was instructed by solicitors for Paul Jones to give advice on a psychiatric injury arising out of a road traffic accident for which he was seeking damages.

Things did not go well and the road traffic matter was settled for considerably less than it could have been. Jones then sued Kaney for damages for negligence.

Kaney pleaded witness immunity and Blake J in the High Court last week ordered that on the basis of previous Court of Appeal authority in Stanton v Callaghan the claim must be struck out.

But he granted Jones a certificate enabling him to ask the Supreme Court to revisit the legal basis for expert witness immunity.

The judge said "There is a substantial likelihood that on re-examination by a superior court, with the power to do so, it will emerge that the public policy justification for the rule cannot support it.

"A policy of blanket immunity for all witnesses, indiscriminately protecting witnesses as to fact and witnesses on the opposing side from expert witnesses retained by a party to advise them before and during the proceedings as to a pertinent issue in those proceedings, may well prove to be too broad to be sustainable and therefore disproportionate.

"The public benefit of truthful, accurate, reliable and frank evidence to the court is unlikely to need such a broad immunity.

"It can be enforced by the court of its own motion, or by professional bodies supervising the professional activities of the expert in question, including the activity of giving evidence to the court," he said.

Pretty powerful stuff, and another great case to look out for.

Photo by d-notice via Flickr.