Description
The Supreme Court held (by a majority) there was no justification (whether as a matter of public policy or otherwise) which justified the continued immunity of an expert evidence from suit in respect of the performance by that expert of his/her duties in court or for the opinions expressed in reports in anticipation of court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the primary justification for conferring immunity from liability in negligence on expert witnesses, namely an assumption that experts would be dissuaded from providing expert services at all, was not made out, particularly as experts were customarily insured against the risk of suit.
