Call me back

To speak to a professional, please enter your details below or call 0151 735 1000

First Name
Surname
Email
Phone
Notes
Nature of Request I would like to receive future offers, information and correspondence via email, phone and post.

Please do not fill this field in, entering any data into this field will make the submission fail:

Removal of expert witness immunity welcomed by personal injury specialist

AN HISTORIC decision to strip expert witnesses of their 400-year-old immunity from being sued in the civil courts was welcomed by a Liverpool-based specialist in personal injury cases.

Expert witnesses have attracted a good deal of controversy in recent years, especially in child care and medical negligence cases.

The decision by the Supreme Court means they will no longer be immune from civil action if they get things wrong.

It follows a complaint by motorcyclist Paul Wynne Jones, who was injured after he was hit by a car in Liverpool in March, 2001. He was forced to settle for a significantly lower sum than he might have otherwise been awarded in pursuit of a damages claim against the driver and this in turn led to him issuing proceedings for negligence.

A High Court judge struck out Mr Wynne Jones's case as he was bound by a 2000 Court of Appeal decision that an expert witness was entitled to immunity and the matter went to a panel of seven Supreme Court justices as a point of general public importance.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by a majority of five to two, rejecting argument that expert witnesses would be discouraged from providing their services if they were liable to be sued for breach of duty.

Steve Cornforth, deputy Managing Partner at Liverpool law firm EAD Solicitors, welcomed the decision.

He said: "The immunity of expert witnesses has for many years been an anomaly which has led to injustice.

"We are all familiar with the high cost of litigation. There have been occasions when the failings of an expert have led to abandonment of cases at great expense to the litigants or the taxpayer in legal aid cases.

"It has been a source of much frustration that such experts were beyond legal accountability. This decision is very welcome news for all involved in complex litigation."

Giving the reasons for the Supreme Court decision, by a majority of five to two, Lord Phillips said: "All who provide professional services which involve a duty of care are at risk of being sued for breach of that duty. They customarily insure against that risk.

"It would be quite wrong to perpetuate the immunity of expert witnesses out of mere conjecture that they will be reluctant to perform their duty to the court if they are not immune from suit for breach of duty."