Edmeades v Thames Board Mills Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0120-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 January 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0120-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning).
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Widgery.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal.
Appeal of defendants from order of Mr. Justice Milmo, London, dated November 28th, 1968.
Mr. MARVEN EVERETT, Q.C., and Mr. HUGH CARLISLE (instructed by Messrs. J.F. Coules & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Defendants.
Mr. MICHAEL HAVERS, Q.C., and Mr. JOHN HAYMN (instructed by Mr. W.H. Thompson) apeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff.
Mr. Edmeades brings an action against the Thames Board Mills Ltd. for injuries received at his work. There is no contest on liability. The only question is damages. This depends on the extent of the injuries which Mr. Edteades sustained. The statement of claim said that his injuries were:-"abrasions of the left shins; swelling of the left foot, ankle and thigh; partial rupture of the quadriceps muscle". It is to be noted in those particulars there is no suggestion of cateoarthritis.
The order giving directions said there should be one medical witness on each side. The plaintiff was examined on his own behalf by a Dr. Bingold. He was examined on behalf of the defendants by a Dr. Abrahatason. The medical reports were exchanged. The defendants then noticed that the plaintiff's doctor. Dr. Bingold, in his report raised a new complaint altogether. He said that the plaintiff suffered from csteoarthrltis caused or aggravated by the accident. That complaint had not been mentioned in the statement of claim at all, and so the defendants' doctor, Dr. Abrahamson, had not made any investigations about it.
It was apparent to the defendants' solicitors that, at the trial, if not before, the plaintiff's advisers would apply to amend the statement so of claim as to allege that the plaintiff suffered from osteo-arthritis as a result of the accident. Such an amendment would certainly be granted. So the defendants desired to have the plaintiff examined on their own behalf by a specialist who could deal with the osteo-arthritls. Accordingly, on 29th May, 1968, the defendants' solicitors wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors: "We would like to have your client medically examined by Mr. R.H. Sewell. We shall be pleased to receive confirmation that you do not object. If for any reason your client does not wish to be examined by Mr. Sewell then we would like him to be examined by one of the following:-"……… Then there were five further names of surgeons or doctors added, making six altogether. The plaintiff's solicitors replied thatthey had no objection to his being examined by the original doctor for the defendants, Dr. Abrahamson, but they were not agreeable to any examination by any of the six new names. rather acrimonious correspondence passed. Each solicitor maintained his point of view. The defendants then applied to the Mester for the action to be stayed unless the plaintiff submitted to a medical examination by one of those six doctors.
The Master refused the application for a stay and made a compromise order under which the plaintiff was not to give evidence of the osteo-arthrltis unless the statement of claim was amended. The defendants appealed to Mr. Justice Milmo. He was impressed by an unreported decision of this Court on 16th March, 1961 — Plckett v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. He refused to stay the proceedings. He held that the action should go on as it was. The Court, he thought, had no jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to be medically examined on behalf of the defendants, and it could not do so indirectly by means of a stay. He said that it would be almost "writing into the White Book a rule that does not exist if a stay were to be ordered in order to compel the plaintiff to submit to a medical examination".
In 1949 the Evershad Committee in their Report (paragraph 342) considered whether the plaintiff should be ordered to submit to a medical examination, and said they thought it was unnecessary. They said it might raise important questions of principle in relation to the liberty of the subject. But a great deal of water has gone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starr v National Coal Board
...what was said in Pickett's case by Lords Justices Willmer and Donovan. 23 The next case that has to be considered is the case of Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills (1969) 2 Queen's Bench 67. That was a case very different from Pickett's case and from the present case on its facts. In that case,......
-
Lane v Willis
...interpolate there that tor myself I find it difficult, as did Lord Justice Widgery, as he then was, in the subsequent case of Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills Ltd., to see what other sanction could be available. To continue with the judgment of Mr. Justice Talbot, his final conclusion is in t......
-
Z (Children)
...it would have the power to stay his claim – to decline to hear his claim – until such time as he agreed to the examination: see Edmeades v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1969] 2 QB 67. Could a family court adopt the same approach? Could a family court, for example, say, 'it is accepted that you ar......
-
S v S; W v Official Solicitor
...of the High Court to order such an examination cannot, in my view, be questioned in this day and age. See, for a recent example, Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills, [1969] 2 Q.B. 67, where the Court of Appeal ordered a stay until the plaintiff, seeking damages for personal injuries, submitted ......
-
Inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers of irish courts
...“The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” (note 2), p. 328. 108 Gray v. Edie [1786] T.R. 267. 109 Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills [1969] 2 Q.B. 67. 110 Lazard Brothers and Co v. Midland Bank Ltd [1993] A.C. 296. 111 Sumner v. William Henderson and Sons Ltd [1963] 1 W.L.R. 823. 112 Kor......
-
Courts 2
...himself for medical examination as requested by the defendant. For this, he relied on the case Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. (1969) 2 Q.B. 67. The test in that case, we observe, appears to be whether or not the request is reasonable. It was submitted before us that the refusal of the ......
-
Preliminary Sections
.... . . . . . . . . . . . • • . 148 Ex Parte Meehan (1965) New South Wales (Australia) Report 30. • . . 148 Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills (1969) 2 Q.B. 67. . . ..... • . . 262 Donmar Productions Ltd. v. Bare & Edo v. Commissioner of Police (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 92. . . . . • . 29 Emmanuel Olas......
-
CHOICE OF DOCTOR IN MEDICAL EXAMINATION
...which will guide Courts of first instance trying such cases. The facts in Edmeades case (Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. (1969) 2 Q.B. 67) were not contested. The defendants, employers of the plaintiff, did not contest a claim for liability for personal injuries to the plaintiff. The o......