Immunity from Suit in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Arenson v Arenson
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Noviembre 1975

    There is a primary and anterior consideration of public policy, which should be the starting-point. This is that, where there is a duty to act with care with regard to another person and there is a breach of such duty causing damage to the other person, public policy in general demands that such damage should be made good to the party to whom the duly is owed by the person owing the duty.

  • Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Octubre 1998

    The policy of the immunity is to enable people to speak freely without fear of being sued, whether successfully or not. If this object is to be achieved, the person in question must know at the time he speaks whether or not the immunity will attach. If it depends upon the contingencies of whether he will be called as a witness, the value of the immunity is destroyed.

  • Stanton and Another v Callaghan and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 08 Julio 1998

    It seems to me that the following propositions are supported by authority binding in this Court: (i) an expert witness who gives evidence at a trial is immune from suit in respect of anything which he says in court, and that immunity will extend to the contents of the report which he adopts as, or incorporates in, his evidence; (ii) where an expert witness gives evidence at a trial the immunity which he would enjoy in respect of that evidence is not to be circumvented by a suit based on the report itself; and (iii) the immunity does not extend to protect an expert who has been retained to advise as to the merits of a party's claim in litigation from a suit by the party by whom he has been retained in respect of that advice, notwithstanding that it was in contemplation at the time when the advice was given that the expert would be a witness at the trial if that litigation were to proceed.

  • Somasundaram v M. Julius Melchoir & Company
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 Julio 1988

    Both counsel submit, rightly in our judgment, that advice as to a plea is something which is so intimately connected with the conduct of the cause in court that it can fairly be said to be a preliminary decision affecting the way that the cause is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing, within the test proposed by McCarthy P. in Rees v. Sinclair and approved by the House of Lords in Saif Ali's case. Indeed it is difficult to think of any decision more closely so connected.

  • Rondel v Worsley
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Noviembre 1967

    But it would, in my view, be undesirable in the interests of the fair and efficient administration of justice to tolerate a system under which, as a sort of bye-product after the trial of an action and after any appeal or appeals, there were litigation upon litigation with the possibility of a recurring chain-like course of litigation. It has always been the policy of the law to ensure that trials are conducted without avoidable strains and tensions of alarm and fear.

  • Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Company
    • House of Lords
    • 02 Noviembre 1978

    It would be absurd if counsel who is immune from an action in negligence for refusing in court to call a witness could be sued in negligence for advising out of court that the witness should not be called. If he could be sued for giving such advice it would make a travesty of the general immunity from suit for anything said or done in court and it is well settled that any device to circumvent this immunity cannot succeed, see e.g. Marrinan v. Vibart [1963] 1 Q.B. 234, 528.

  • Empson v Smith
    • Court of Appeal
    • 26 Mayo 1965

    If MR. Smith had applied before the passing of the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, to have Mrs. Empson's actiondismissed there would have been no answer to his put he delayed until November, 1964. By that date his right to Immunity from civil suit had been curtailed by that Act which applies to the United Kingdom the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, contained in the Schedule to the Act.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Denying Foreign State Immunity on the Grounds of the Unavailability of Alternative Means
    • Nbr. 71-5, September 2008
    • The Modern Law Review
    Granting immunity from suit to a foreign state or an international organisation, deprives the plaintiff of access to court and appears incompatible with the rule of law. Since the European Court of...
    ...... bility of Alternati ve Means MizushimaT omonori n Granting immunity from suit to a foreign state or an international organisation, deprives the ......
  • Recent Judicial Decisions
    • Nbr. 79-3, September 2006
    • Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles
    ...... of whether the Court of Appeal could depart from the established rules of precedent and follow ... to Practise Panel (FPP); good faith; immunity from suit; immunity not absolute; inaccurate ......
  • Index to Volume 67: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
    • Nbr. 67-6, December 2003
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
    ......) Abuse of process 20, 87 Advocates’ immunity from suit in respect of conduct in court 401 ......
  • Not Yet Dead: Wright v Paton Farrell and Advocates' Immunity in Scotland
    • Nbr. 70-3, May 2007
    • The Modern Law Review
    ...... on of loss, and for its extensive dicta on advocates’ 2 immunity from suit. The artic le argues that although t he causation issu e appears ......
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT