Advocate's Immunity in Negligence Action: Comparion Between UK and Malaysia

• Main Author: Mohd Fuad, Husaini
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: 2013
• Subjects: D History (General)
• Online Access: http://eprints.unisza.edu.my/2661/1/FH02-FUHA-19-34136.pdf; http://eprints.unisza.edu.my/2661/
• Institution: Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin

The doctrine of advocates’ immunity renders advocates immune from civil claims in professional negligence for any act or omission which arises honestly in the conduct or management of a proceeding in court, and for any out of court act or omission that is intimately connected with in court proceedings. The general principle that barristers are entitled to some immunity was established, or re-established, in the United Kingdom by the House of Lords. It was argued that barristers should enjoy no greater immunity than other professional men. But that argument was rejected: barristers, it was firmly held, have a special status, just as a trial has a special character: some immunity is necessary in the public interest, even if, in some rare cases, an individual may suffer loss. The paper contemplates advocate’s defence of immunity against negligence action especially when the “negligence” arose due to conduct of the advocate in court. Comparison is made between application of the defence of immunity in the Malaysian perspective as well as in the United Kingdom.