Davidson v Lloyd Aircraft Services Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0514-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 May 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0514-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal (by leave of Mr. Justice Cusack) by South West Middlesex Hospital Management Committee and the Redhill and Netheme Group. Hospital Management Committee from order of Mr. Justice Cusack on 3rd January 1974.
Revised
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Buckley and
Lord Justice Ormrod.
Mr. T. BINGHAM, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. T. Gibson, agent for Messrs. J. TICKLE & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Middlesex and the Redhill and Netherne Group Hospital Management Committees.
Mr. PETER WEITZMAN, Q.C., and Mr. GEOFFREY GRIGSON (instructed by Messrs. W.H. Thompson) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff. The Defendants, Lloyd Aircraft Services Ltd., did not appear and were not represented.
Yesterday we had to consider section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Today it is section 32. It gives the High Court power to order a person — who is not a party to any legal proceedings — to disclose documents in his possession to one of the parties.
Mr. Davidson was an aircraft liaison engineer at Stansted Airport. On 18th April 1969 he was ordered to go urgently to Dar-es-Salaam. There was no time for him to be inoculated against tropical diseases. On the next day he was flown out there. He worked through the night. He came back next day. A week or so later he developed malignant tertian malaria. He was taken to the Middlesex Hospital, afterwards to the Hammersmith Hospital; then back to the Middlesex. He was discharged from hospital apparently recovered. He resumed work on 7th July, 1969. It is to be noticed, however, that whilst in hospital he did have angina pains. Pour years later, in July 1973, he was found to be suffering from a heart condition. He was admitted to the Crawley Hospital. He is a sick man. He is still unfit for work. Now he has brought an action for damages against his employers, Lloyd Aircraft Services Ltd.
The question is whether his present heart condition is attributable to or aggravated by the disease he contracted in Dar-es-Salaam four years ago. The plaintiff's solicitors wish him to be medically examined by Dr. Bruce-Chwatt, Professor of Tropical Hygiene at the Tropical Diseases Hospital. In order to do it properly, the Professor wants to have access to all the hospital records and notes which were made during the time he was under treatment in July 1969 and also at the Crawley Hospital recently. The hospitals are not parties to the action. So recourse is had by the plaintiff's advisers to section 32. The hospitals are perfectly ready to disclose the records to theProfessor, for him to advise; but they object to their being disclosed to anyone except the Professor. In particular, they object to their being disclosed to the legal advisers or to Mr. Davidson himself. The Master made an order for disclosure to the Professor, but to no one else. On appeal, the Judge thought that the order should not be so limited. He ordered that the hospital records and notes should be disclosed to the plaintiff's solicitors. That means that they will be disclosed to whomsoever the solicitors think proper, not only to the professor and other medical men, but also to the plaintiff himself. The hospital are disturbed at the Judge's order. They appeal to this Court as a matter of principle — so as to know what the practice is to be under section 32.
Before the new statute none of the parties to an action could compel a third person to produce his records or notes before and in advance of the trial. No party could compel a hospital to produce its records or notes prior to the hearing. The only thing to do was to issue a subpoena duces tecum requiring the hospital to produce them at the trial. In obedience to the subpoena, a secretary from the hospital would attend at the trial and produce them. If they needed to be studied, the trial would have to be adjourned for the purpose. That was a very clumsy procedure. In order to get round it, if my memory serves me rightly, it often happened that, when the plaintiff's doctor was asked to advise, the doctor himself would get in touch with the hospital and ask to be allowed to see the records and notes. The hospital would let the plaintiff's doctor see their notes and records, but to go no further. So the matter was dealt with.
It was obviously undesirable that the legal position should be so clumsy. Lord Justice Winn's Committee pointed out in paragraphs 293 to 297 and made some wise recommendations whichI will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIvor v Southern Health and Social Services Board
...to medical advisers of the applicant. This practice applies both to orders under section 32 (Davidson v. Lloyd Aircraft Services, Ltd. [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1042) and also to orders under section 31 which provides for discovery before proceedings are commenced and is couched in similar terms. (Du......
-
Deistung (A Minor) v South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board
...and the medical experts together." 14 On the very next day in this Court we had the case of ( Davidson v. Lloyd Aircraft Service Ltd. 1974) 1 W.L.R. 1042. I feel sure that if the Judge had had that case before him he would have come to a different conclusion. 15 But apart from that, as a re......
-
Eilish Morley (on her own behalf as personal representative of the estate of Eoin Morley (deceased)) and The Ministry of Defence and Peter Keeley and The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and The office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
...and disclosure from a third party who is not involved in the proceedings. [49] In Davidson v Lloyds Aircraft Services Limited [1974] 3 All ER 1 at page 5 Ormrod LJ said in respect of such third party discovery that: “It is undoubtedly an invasion and to some extent a substantial invasion of......
-
Holloway v Belenos Publications Ltd
...FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE AND THE MINISTER FORENERGY NOTICE PARTIES Citations: RSC 1986 O.31 r29 DAVIDSON V LLOYD AIRCRAFT SERVICE LTD 1974 1 WLR 1042 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970 S32(1) SUPREME COURT ACT 1981 S34(2) RULES OF SUPREME COURT O.24 r7(a) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PERSON......