In General Medical Council v Prof Sir Roy Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, the Court of Appeal has handed down a bold decision limiting the scope of the expert witness' immunity and allowing professional bodies to investigate practitioners and impose disciplinary sanctions in complaints arising out of expert evidence given in court.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal has revived the contentious public policy arguments underlying the immunity itself.

Expert witnesses consider themsleves as authorities in their fields and are paid to provide the benefit of their professional opinions.

Yet they still enjoy a level of immunity from suit similar to that enjoyed by advocates prior to the decision in Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615.

In today's consumer society people have a greater awareness of their rights than ever before; if they have received negligent professional services, they expect to have the right to claim redress.

In such a climate has the privileged position occupied by today's expert outlived any usefulness it may once have had?

The purpose of this article is twofold:

(i) to consider the rationale of the Court of Appeal and assess its immediate effects and

(ii) to suggest that the experts' immunity itself may no longer be sustainable in light of the Court of Appeal's analysis.

 For the rest of the article, please download the PDF from the top right.