Immunity from Suit in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Oct 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.

  • Arenson v Arenson
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Nov 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.

  • Somasundaram v M. Julius Melchoir & Company
    • Court of Appeal
    • 12 Jul 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.

  • Stanton and Another v Callaghan and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 08 Jul 1998

    What, as it seems to me, has not been decided by any authority binding in this Court is whether an expert is immune from suit by the party who has retained him in respect of the contents of a report which he prepares for the purpose of exchange prior to trial—say, to comply with directions given under Order 38 rule 37 RSC—in circumstances where he does not, in the event, give evidence at the trial; either because the trial does not take place or because he is not called as a witness.

  • Zoernsch v Waldock
    • Court of Appeal
    • 24 Mar 1964

    The immunity of an envoy from suit or legal process arisesfrom the duties owed by States to one another in international law. In respect of acts done by an envoy in his private capacity the purpose of his immunity from suit or legal process is so that he may perform his duties to his government without harassment while en poste.

  • Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Company
    • House of Lords
    • 02 Nov 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.

  • Rondel v Worsley
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Nov 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.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
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