Is the end in sight for expert witness immunity? Dr Chris Pamplin considers the evidence
A leapfrog certificate has once again brought the issue of expert witness immunity under the spotlight. Early next year, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal in Jones v Kaney [2010] EWHC 61 (QB), [2010] 2 All ER 649 on whether expert witness immunity should remain.
As a matter of public policy, all witnesses in legal proceedings are protected from claims for damages resulting from anything said or done in court. The policy justification for this immunity is not to provide a benefit to the witness, but to help the courts reach just decisions by encouraging witnesses to express themselves freely. It was given classic expression by Salmon J in Marrinan v Vibart [1963] 1 QB 234, [1962] 1 All ER 869:
“This immunity exists for the benefit of the public, since the administration of justice would be greatly impeded if witnesses were to be in fear that any disgruntled and possibly impecunious persons against whom they gave evidence might subsequently involve them in costly litigation.”
And, with
