Witness immunity the argument in favour
Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 156(7232) 7 July 2006, 1086-1089(4)Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: In the light of the decision in "Meadow v General Medical Council" ([2006] EWHC 146, Admin, unreported), the author argues that limited immunity for expert witnesses against claims by dissatisfied litigants remains necessary to ensure that they can give evidence in court without fear of subsequent litigation or complaint to their professional body. A second article "Witness immunity - the argument against" takes the opposite view, arguing that as advocates, on public policy grounds, have now lost legal immunity, there is no reason why experts, who owe an equivalent duty of care to the party who calls them, should be in a different position.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L134151 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134151-1001 |
In the light of the decision in "Meadow v General Medical Council" ([2006] EWHC 146, Admin, unreported), the author argues that limited immunity for expert witnesses against claims by dissatisfied litigants remains necessary to ensure that they can give evidence in court without fear of subsequent litigation or complaint to their professional body. A second article "Witness immunity - the argument against" takes the opposite view, arguing that as advocates, on public policy grounds, have now lost legal immunity, there is no reason why experts, who owe an equivalent duty of care to the party who calls them, should be in a different position.