Protecting the Continued Development of Collaborative Expert Witness Evidence in Australia: Surely We Should?
- PMID: 30958654
Protecting the Continued Development of Collaborative Expert Witness Evidence in Australia: Surely We Should?
Abstract
Australia has recognised the need to cope with changing attitudes towards advocate and expert witness immunity. While some international jurisdictions have chosen to abolish the immunity altogether, Australia has most recently, via the High Court decisions in Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16 and Kendirjian v Lepore [2017] HCA 13, recognised the need for the immunity to exist, albeit with significantly narrowed scope. Generally, the principles and scope of expert witness immunity tend to follow that of advocate immunity. However, Australia is widely accepted as the most advanced judicial system supporting the use of concurrent expert evidence. This analysis discusses the unique position of Australia after these two High Court decisions that shape expert witness immunity, recognising the ongoing policy of protecting the finality of litigation. However, the legislature must be careful not to maintain this as the foremost reason for the immunity merely because the courts have chosen this pathway previously. Nor should the legislature merely maintain the status quo of expert witness immunity following advocate immunity.
Keywords: advocate immunity; collaborative evidence; conclaves; expert immunity; hot-tubs; medical expert.
Conflict of interest statement
None.
Similar articles
-
Expert Witness Immunity in Australia after Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers: A Smaller and Less Predictable Shield?J Law Med. 2017;24(3):628-39. J Law Med. 2017. PMID: 30137758
-
Adapting to concurrent expert evidence in medical litigation.J Law Med. 2015 Mar;22(3):610-31. J Law Med. 2015. PMID: 25980193
-
Conclaves and concurrent expert evidence: a positive development in Australian legal practice?Med J Aust. 2016 Feb 1;204(2):82-3. doi: 10.5694/mja15.00759. Med J Aust. 2016. PMID: 26821112
-
Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.Forensic Sci Rev. 2001 Jul;13(2):87-99. Forensic Sci Rev. 2001. PMID: 26256304 Review.
-
The expert witness: understanding the rationale.J Am Coll Radiol. 2007 Sep;4(9):612-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.02.016. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007. PMID: 17845966 Review.