Cases - Palmer v Durnford Ford

Record details

Name

Palmer v Durnford Ford

Date

[1992]; [1992]

Citation

2 WLR 407; CILL 726

Keywords

Expert witness

Summary

In a case concerning damages for repair of a tractor which had broken down, the claimants had to abandon their claim as hopeless and sued their experts, whom it was alleged lacked the necessary qualifications to advise and should not have accepted the retainer. The experts, pleading immunity, sought to have the claim struck out. However, the judge distinguished between giving evidence in court and preliminary work:

'I can see no good reason why an expert should not be liable for the advice which he gives to his client as to the merits of the claim, particularly if proceedings have not been started, and a fortiori [i.e. even more so] as to whether he is qualified to advise at all ... The problem is where to draw the line given that there is immunity for evidence given in court and it must extend to the preparation of such evidence to avoid the immunity being outflanked and rendered of little use ... The immunity would only extend to what could fairly be said to be preliminary to his giving evidence in the court, judged perhaps by the principal purpose for which the work was done. So the production or approval of a report for the purposes of disclosure to the other side would be immune but work done for the principal purpose of advising the client would not ... I do not think that difficulty in drawing the line precisely should result in a [claimant] in a case such as this being denied all remedy against his expert.'

(See also Stanton v Callaghan in which this case was approved.)