header-logo header-logo

All change?

15 April 2010 / Roddy Macleod
Issue: 7413 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Roddy Macleod asks the question:to sue or not to sue?

Reading about the immunity of a witness from proceedings in respect of evidence given within those proceedings may well not be a headline grabber, especially as the origins of the rule go back to 1873. But following the case of Jones v Kaney [2010] EWHC 61 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 131 (Jan) that could all change.

History of the law

The immunity of a witness from litigation in respect of evidence given in court was described as a fundamental rule of law by Lord Justice Simon Brown in Silcott v Metropolitan Police [1996] 8 Admin LR. Back in 1873 in Dawkins v Lord Rokeby 8 QB 225 Page 265 it was said: “…no action lies against a witness upon evidence given before court….” Over the years it is clear that the court has recognised immunity also in relation to things done or omitted to be done in the course of preparing for trial.

The basis of the immunity in respect of evidence given in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll