Expert witness immunity in Australia after Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers: A smaller and less predictable shield?
Cockburn, Tina & Madden, William (2017) Expert witness immunity in Australia after Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers: A smaller and less predictable shield? Journal of Law and Medicine, 24(3), pp. 628-639.
|
Accepted Version
(PDF 574kB)
106936.pdf. |
|
![[img]](https://eprints.qut.edu.au/secure/style/images/fileicons/other.png)
|
MS Word 2007
(87kB)
Expert immunity after Attwells v Jackson Lalic_19 July 2016_SUBMISSION-COPY.docx. Administrators only | Request a copy from author |
Description
Expert witnesses act as "injury brokers" in contributing to the analysis of what qualifies as legally recognised and compensable injury in medical negligence litigation. The orthodox approach in Australia is that expert witnesses, like advocates, are immune from suit in negligence. In Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 90 ALJR 572; [2016] HCA 16, the High Court of Australia upheld, but narrowed, advocates' immunity. This article outlines the decision in the Atwells case and after reviewing Australian authority on expert witness immunity argues that, given the recent narrowing of the scope of advocates' immunity, similar limitations are likely to be placed on the scope of expert witness immunity with two effects – it will be less commonly available and less predictably available.
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloads:
Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
| ID Code: | 106936 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Item Type: | Contribution to Journal (Journal Article) | ||
| Refereed: | Yes | ||
| ORCID iD: |
|
||
| Measurements or Duration: | 12 pages | ||
| Keywords: | expert witness, immunity, litigation, medical negligence | ||
| ISSN: | 1320-159X | ||
| Pure ID: | 33218243 | ||
| Divisions: | Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Law Current > Schools > School of Law Current > Research Centres > Australian Centre for Health Law Research |
||
| Copyright Owner: | Copyright 2017 Thomson Reuters | ||
| Copyright Statement: | This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au | ||
| Deposited On: | 15 May 2017 16:35 | ||
| Last Modified: | 19 Apr 2026 16:50 |
Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX
Repository Staff Only: item control page