Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd

Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd

The Court of Appeal allowed the amendment to plead deceit, finding that the rationale for witness immunity no longer applied in light of the allegations and facts disclosed. The court held that it was inappropriate to strike out the claims for negligence and breach of the Human Rights Act at this stage, as the boundaries of immunity and the existence of a duty of care required full factual investigation. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for further proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Thomas James Smart; Respondent: The Forensic Science Service Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim; Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to amend claim granted; claims for negligence and Human Rights Act breach reinstated.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Witness Immunity, Deceit, Duty of Care, Amendment of Pleadings, Miscarriage of Justice, Public Authority Liability
Tort Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Negligence Witness Immunity Deceit Duty of Care +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas James Smart

Appellant

The Forensic Science Service Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim; Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for negligence and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 should be struck out on grounds of witness immunity and absence of duty of care
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should be permitted to amend the particulars of claim to allege deceit
  3. 3 Whether the Forensic Science Service Limited is a public authority for purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal allowed the amendment to plead deceit, finding that the rationale for witness immunity no longer applied in light of the allegations and facts disclosed. The court held that it was inappropriate to strike out the claims for negligence and breach of the Human Rights Act at this stage, as the boundaries of immunity and the existence of a duty of care required full factual investigation. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to amend claim granted; claims for negligence and Human Rights Act breach reinstated.

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim to allege deceit granted.
  • Claims for negligence and breach of Human Rights Act 1998 reinstated and not struck out.