Expert Witness Immunity

Traditionally expert witnesses have been protected in court proceedings by expert witness immunity.

In January, the Supreme Court considered the issue of expert immunity in a two-day hearing of the case of Paul Wynne Jones v Sue Kaney.

Judgment is not expected for some time but it is anticipated that the Supreme Court may take this opportunity to lift expert immunity.

Mr Wynne Jones argued that the case of Stanton v Callaghan (1998 1 Q.B 75) – case law on the subject - is no longer relevant as expert immunity is inconsistent with the right to a fair trail and is not supported by the 2000 decision to abolish a barristers immunity from suit.

The case was granted a leap frog certificate meaning that Mr Wynne could take the issue directly to the Supreme Court and bypass the Court of Appeal.

This case poses the risk that expert witness immunity could be abolished entirely or severely curtailed. This could therefore impact on the number of experts available to provide evidence in litigation. This would then impact on costs and the time frames for providing evidence. However, there may be some benefit, the ruling could lead to increased professionalism of expert witnesses and there are obvious consequences of this to both solicitors and clients.
Traditionally expert witnesses have been protected in court proceedings by expert witness immunity.

In January, the Supreme Court considered the issue of expert immunity in a two-day hearing of the case of Paul Wynne Jones v Sue Kaney.

Judgment is not expected for some time but it is anticipated that the Supreme Court may take this opportunity to lift expert immunity.

Mr Wynne Jones argued that the case of Stanton v Callaghan (1998 1 Q.B 75) – case law on the subject - is no longer relevant as expert immunity is inconsistent with the right to a fair trail and is not supported by the 2000 decision to abolish a barristers immunity from suit.

The case was granted a leap frog certificate meaning that Mr Wynne could take the issue directly to the Supreme Court and bypass the Court of Appeal.

This case poses the risk that expert witness immunity could be abolished entirely or severely curtailed. This could therefore impact on the number of experts available to provide evidence in litigation. This would then impact on costs and the time frames for providing evidence. However, there may be some benefit, the ruling could lead to increased professionalism of expert witnesses and there are obvious consequences of this to both solicitors and clients.