Stanton & Anor v Callaghan & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1176 (8 July 1998)

Stanton & Anor v Callaghan & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1176 (8 July 1998)

The Court of Appeal held that, absent negligence, the expert acted within the scope of his instructions in agreeing the joint statement and advising on the 'gap solution.' The allegations of breach of retainer or acting outside authority were not sustainable on the pleaded facts. The only potentially arguable claim was for negligence in the advice itself, but immunity from suit does not extend to shield an expert from liability to his own client for negligent advice, unless the advice is so intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court that public policy requires immunity. The court struck out all claims except those based on alleged negligence in the advice itself, which...

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 1176
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Philip Gerald Stanton; Plaintiff/respondent: Sylvia Mary Stanton; Defendant/appellant: Brian F Callaghan; Defendant/appellant: Brian F Callaghan & Associates; Defendant/appellant: Brian F Callaghan & Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) Decision Refusing to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; statement of claim struck out except for allegations of negligence in advice as expert.
Legal Topics
Expert Witness Immunity, Negligence, Breach of Retainer, Strike Out Applications, Public Policy Immunity
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Tort Law Expert Witness Immunity Negligence Breach of Retainer Strike Out Applications Public Policy Immunity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Gerald Stanton

Plaintiff/respondent

Sylvia Mary Stanton

Plaintiff/respondent

Brian F Callaghan

Defendant/appellant

Brian F Callaghan & Associates

Defendant/appellant

Brian F Callaghan & Partners

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) Decision Refusing to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert witness can be sued by his own client for negligence or breach of retainer in relation to advice and joint statements prepared for pending litigation.
  2. 2 Whether immunity from suit applies to expert witnesses for pre-trial advice and joint statements.
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action or were an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, absent negligence, the expert acted within the scope of his instructions in agreeing the joint statement and advising on the 'gap solution.' The allegations of breach of retainer or acting outside authority were not sustainable on the pleaded facts. The only potentially arguable claim was for negligence in the advice itself, but immunity from suit does not extend to shield an expert from liability to his own client for negligent advice, unless the advice is so intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court that public policy requires immunity. The court struck out all claims except those based on alleged negligence in the advice itself, which...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; statement of claim struck out except for allegations of negligence in advice as expert.

Orders

  • Claims based on breach of retainer, acting outside authority, or extraneous influence struck out.
  • Claim for negligence in advice regarding the 'gap solution' allowed to proceed to trial.