header-logo header-logo

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

All change?

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll