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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll