Hong Kong: Abolition Of Expert Witness Immunity In UK – What Does It Mean In Hong Kong?

Last Updated: 15 May 2011
Article by David Smyth and Antony Sassi

As readers will be aware from our alert on 30 March 2011, the UK Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgment that day in the case of Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 (the judgment). The effect of the judgment (by a majority of five to two judges) is to abolish an expert witness's immunity from suit with respect to testimony given in court or with respect to work intimately connected with the conduct of court proceedings in the UK. In this article we take a look at issues that arose in the case and what the judgment might mean for litigants and experts in civil proceedings in Hong Kong.

What are the key points and likely practical lessons?

  • In court proceedings in the UK experts no longer enjoy immunity from suit for negligence claims arising out of their report or the evidence they give in relation to court proceedings.
  • Claims against experts in respect of acts or omissions that took place before the judgment are actionable subject to rules relating to time bar (limitation periods).
  • Going forward, successful claims against experts in the UK are likely to be rare. If an expert expresses an opinion that is honestly held and within the range of reasonable expert opinion, he/she will have discharged his/her overriding duty to the court and will not be liable merely because that opinion is adverse to his/her client's case.
  • Experts, just like witnesses of fact, continue to enjoy protection against claims for defamation arising out of their evidence given in court.
  • Just like some accountants and larger law firms, experts are likely to use this opportunity to review their terms of engagement and consider whether they should try to exclude or limit their liability as a matter of contract (insofar as is consistent with local legislation).
  • Experts that do not have professional indemnity insurance should have, whether as part of a corporate policy or an individual bespoke policy. It is only a matter of time before a challenge to expert immunity is made in Hong Kong. If such a challenge was successful (which is by no means certain) then claims could be brought in respect of breaches of duty that took place before a change in the law in Hong Kong.

    Accordingly, experts retained in court proceedings in Hong Kong should also have professional indemnity insurance cover.
  • Insurers are likely to ask more questions in proposal forms for professional indemnity insurance cover regarding whether an insured undertakes expert work and to what extent.
  • Professional indemnity insurance premiums may increase to reflect the additional risk.

What was the immunity enjoyed by experts in court proceedings in UK?

Previously experts in UK court proceedings had enjoyed immunity from lawsuits with respect to the evidence they gave at trial or with respect to the opinions they expressed in connection with court proceedings. That immunity had existed for many years and was justified on the basis that (amongst other things) an expert witness should be free to give full and frank evidence to the court, without fear of vexatious lawsuits from disgruntled litigants. The immunity was never absolute. For example, in English proceedings, experts have no immunity with respect to professional disciplinary proceedings (in which their fitness to practice is challenged – Meadow v General Medical Council [2007] QB 462) and they can be liable in negligence with respect to their advice as to the merits of a party's claims. The immunity also never protected experts (or witnesses of fact for that matter) against liability for contempt of court or perjury.

How did the issue come before the Supreme Court?

In short, Jones retained Kaney as an expert in a personal injuries claim that he had commenced. Although Kaney's initial opinion was favourable to Jones, she later signed a joint statement prepared by the opposing expert that contained conclusions damaging to Jones' claim. Jones' claim was settled for considerably less than otherwise would have been the case. Jones sued Kaney for alleged negligence in signing the joint statement, which he claimed (amongst other things) did not reflect what Kaney actually thought during a joint conference with the other expert.

At first instance, Kaney was successful in having Jones' claim against her struck out on the basis that, as things stood under English common law, she enjoyed immunity (Stanton v Callaghan [2000] 1 QB 75). However, the judge considered that there were strong grounds to question whether that authority could stand. Given the importance of the issues involved, the case was appealed direct to the Supreme Court (thereby "leapfrogging" the English Court of Appeal).

Why did the Supreme Court decide to remove the immunity?

The judgment contains an interesting discussion of the relevant case law. In essence, the majority decision of the Supreme Court was driven by policy considerations. The majority started from the interesting premise that, although expert immunity was long established under English law, it was for the expert (Kaney) to justify the immunity pursuant to which she sought protection. The judgment is long. However, two principal arguments to support the immunity were considered and dismissed by the majority.

Without the immunity experts might be discouraged from providing their services

The majority did not appear to be impressed by this. Indeed, not surprisingly, there did not appear to be any evidence to support such a proposition. Given that expert witnesses owe a duty of care to those that retain them, the majority did not see any justification for treating them differently to other professional service providers who were at risk of being sued if negligent.

Crucially, in the landmark case of Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615, the House of Lords (as it then was) removed the limited immunity that advocates enjoyed with respect to work conducted in court in English proceedings or with respect to work intimately connected with the preparation for court proceedings. The majority was of the view that since that decision advocates had not shied away from court work in England, nor had there been an escalation of lawsuits against them there.

Without the immunity experts might feel constrained in what they can tell the court

An argument was advanced that without the immunity experts might feel less willing to express opinions that were adverse to their clients' interests. The majority of the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument. On the contrary, the majority considered that, if anything, experts were likely to be more careful in preparing their reports and in giving evidence (and this was a good thing).

What is the position regarding expert immunity in court proceedings in Hong Kong?

Expert immunity has not (to date) been successfully challenged in the courts in Hong Kong. Until the judgment of the Supreme Court, it was traditionally considered that experts enjoyed such immunity in Hong Kong. It is worth remembering that, as stated above, the immunity is not absolute.

What is the relevance of the judgment in Hong Kong?

This is difficult to say and, at times like this, one wishes one had the foresight of a clairvoyant and the wisdom of King Solomon. There is bound to be some discomfort amongst experts in Hong Kong. The judgment is likely to be "persuasive" for a variety of reasons. First, some of the policy considerations reflected in the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court are difficult to argue with. Second, much of the common law in Hong Kong, in matters such as these, has its roots in English common law given the historical connection between the two.

However, that is not to say that if the matter of expert immunity came before the courts in Hong Kong for consideration that the courts there would automatically follow the judgment of the Supreme Court. Much might depend on whether barristers' limited immunity from suit still existed at the time. It is clear from the judgment that the majority of the Supreme Court considered that it was difficult to justify the continued existence of an expert's immunity given that an advocate's limited immunity from suit had been abolished in England in 2002.

Barristers' limited immunity survives (for now) in Hong Kong. The importance of a small but independent Bar to Hong Kong's rule of law suggests that any attempt to undermine barristers' immunity will be vigorously defended both in the courts and, possibly, in Hong Kong's Legislative Council (in which prominent members of the Bar have traditionally sat as elected or representative members). These local circumstances should not be underestimated. Interestingly, one of the dissenting judges in the Supreme Court described the manner in which expert immunity was being removed by the Supreme Court as "irresponsible" and suggested that the matter was more for the Law Commission to consider and, if thought appropriate, Parliament (the legislature in the UK).

Furthermore, any attempt to remove either experts' or barristers' immunity from suit will raise important issues of great public importance in Hong Kong. Therefore, any court proceedings in which such matters are raised would ultimately be determined by an appellate court and, probably, the Court of Final Appeal (unless settled beforehand). The Court of Final Appeal enjoys a good reputation and a high profile and invites eminent judges from other common law jurisdictions to join it. Some of those overseas judges hail from the Supreme Court in the UK or the High Court of Australia. The courts in Hong Kong are entitled to and do refer to case law from other common law jurisdictions (as a matter of convention and pursuant to Article 84 of Hong Kong's Basic Law). It is interesting to note that in Australia advocates' limited common law immunity from suit is still preserved, primarily on the basis of a need for finality in litigation (D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1). This is an interesting point in the context of Hong Kong; a small jurisdiction with a number of active litigants in person.

As and when the issues of barristers' or experts' immunity from suit are tested in the courts in Hong Kong (and it is only a matter of time before they are) it is too close a call for now to predict which way the courts will go. Ultimately, it is quite possible that the two will stand or fall together.

Like any other self-respecting lawyers, a case in which these immunities are raised is a case in respect of which we would like to be instructed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mayer Brown
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mayer Brown
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions