| 000 | 01391cab a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ##L134151 | ||
| 008 | 060713n2006 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u134151 | ||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 100 | 1 | _aGooderham, Peter | |
| 245 | 0 | 0 |
_aWitness immunity _bthe argument in favour |
| 260 | _c2006 | ||
| 490 | 0 |
_aNew Law Journal _v156(7232) 7 July 2006, 1086-1089(4) |
|
| 520 | _aIn 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. | ||
| 590 | _aIKA180706 | ||
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aMEADOW V GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL |
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aSTANTON V CALLAGHAN |
| 651 | 4 |
_aEngland and Wales _y1543- |
|
| 690 | _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-EXPERT WITNESSES-EXPERT EVIDENCE | ||
| 700 | 1 |
_aBlom-Cooper, Louis Jacques _cSir _d1926- |
|
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c77390 _d77390 |
||