Law lords reject immunity for advocates

Immunity for barristers and solicitor-advocates in both civil and criminal cases is not longer supported by public policy, the House of Lords ruled yesterday (20 July).The decision in Hall v Simons was on a four to three majority.

Lords Browne-Wilkinson, Steyn, Hoffman and Millett voted in favour of ending immunity.The minority (Lords Hope, Hutton and Hobhouse) agreed that the immunity has ceased to exist in civil cases but held that it ought to be maintained in criminal cases.The case was brought by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund and Law Society with Bar Council assistance.

The fund brought the case because barristers enjoyed far more protection than solicitors and wanted to establish that both side of the profession should be treated equally.Patrick Gaul of north-west solicitors' firm Weightmans, who acted for the fund, said: 'We are also pleased that the House of Lords has encouraged judges to use their powers to ensure that unmeritorius claims will not be allowed to proceed.'Bar Council chairman Jonathan Hirst QC said: 'Barristers' immunity from suit is the product of judge-made law.

It should come as no surprise that the courts have looked at this important matter again.

The vital thing for the future conduct of justice is that advocates remain free to assert their clients' case without fear or favour.'Meanwhile, in a busy day for the House of Lords, it ruled that the long-running action by more than 3,000 South African asbestos disease victims against UK company Cape will proceed in England.In a key ruling on forum, the Lords overturned two lower court judgments from last year.

Neil Rose