Negligence case may go to appeal
21/01/2010
A ruling in a negligence case could pave the way for a "leapfrog appeal" and a re-examination of blanket immunity for expert witnesses.
It comes after road accident victim Paul Wynne Jones sued clinical psychologist Sue Kaney.
In 2003, Dr Kaney advised solicitors acting for Mr Wynne Jones on a psychiatric injury for which he was seeking damages.
She initially reported that he had symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but later signed a joint statement with the opposing expert which was "very damaging" to Mr Wynne Jones's prospects of success, recording that she found him "very deceptive and deceitful".
As a result, said the judge, Mr Wynne Jones's accident claim was settled for considerably less than it would have been.
Mr Wynne Jones went on to sue Dr Kaney, who did not dispute that, if admitted or proved, the facts could constitute evidence of a failure to adhere to the expected duty of care.
But, Dr Kaney's lawyers argued that the case should be "struck out" because of the current law on witness immunity.
The judge, at London's High Court, agreed that an existing decision of the Court of Appeal was "good law" and binding upon him, but said that he had doubts whether it would remain so.
"I conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that on re-examination by a superior court, with the power to do so, it will emerge that the public policy justification for the rule cannot support it."
It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to give permission for the appeal.
Copyright © Press Association 2010