Norman Richard Haywood v Hugh Ritchie, Kevin Ritchie, Colin Ritchie and Hal Ritchie t/a as H Ritchie and Sons
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Higgins J |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] NIQB 42 |
| Date | 20 May 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2005 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2005] NIQB 42 Ref:
HIGF5295
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
20/05/2005
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
Between:
NORMAN RICHARD HAYWOOD
Plaintiff;
-and-
HUGH RITCHIE, KEVIN RITCHIE, COLIN RITCHIE AND HAL
RITCHIE t/a as H RITCHIE & SONS
Defendant.
__________
HIGGINS J
[1] This is an appeal from an order of Master Wilson whereby he refused
the defendant’s application for an order staying this action pursuant to the
inherent jurisdiction of the court. On 22 June 2004 the plaintiff issued a writ of
summons against the defendant claiming damages for personal injuries, loss
and damage sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant in and
about the employment of the plaintiff. A statement of claim was served on
19 July 2004. This alleges that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as
an oil tanker driver and that he was injured at his place of work on or about
1 August 2003. It is alleged that he sustained injury when a metal shutter,
used to secure the defendant’s office at the weekend, was pulled down by
2
another employee, thereby striking the plaintiff on his right shoulder. The
particulars of personal injuries allege –
“Shock, Musculo ligamentous sprain of the cervico-
thoracic region, and some of the muscles of the
shoulder girdle on the right side. The plaintiff takes
pain killers every day. The plaintiff’s pain has spread
to the back and front of his shoulder, his upper arm
and the front of his chest. The plaintiff is never pain
free. The plaintiff’s symptoms resulted in the
development of depression. Reduced movements of
the cervical flexion, extension, rotation and lateral
flexion.”
[2] In addition the plaintiff claims loss of earnings from 20 February 2004
and any future loss of earnings. The defence served on 6 September denies
that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, denies the incident and
injuries alleged and pleads contributory negligence.
[3] On 24 June 2004, at the request of his solicitor, the plaintiff was
examined by Mr M G McAlinden FRCS, a Consultant Surgeon in Trauma and
Orthopaedic Surgery. The Consultant Surgeon recorded a short history from
the plaintiff as to the circumstances in which he was injured. This report was
made available to the defendant’s solicitor in accordance with the provisions
of Order 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Of Northern Ireland. Following
consideration of this report the defendant’s solicitor decided it was necessary
for the proper preparation, presentation and conduct of this action that the
defendant should have the plaintiff medically examined. Arrangements were
made for Mr X FRCS, described as a Consultant General Surgeon, to examine
the plaintiff at the Ulster Independent Clinic on 8 October 2004. The
plaintiff’s solicitor was notified about these arrangements by letter dated 6
September 2004. On 27 September 2004 the defendant’s solicitor received an
undated letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor which stated –
“We refer to yours of 6th inst and regret to inform you
the plaintiff will not be attending any examination by
Mr X FRCS.
Mr X has been dismissive of every plaintiff that he has
ever examined from this office and has in every case
required access to the entirety of the Plaintiff’s GP’s
notes and records, notwithstanding the fact that
several High Court decisions have confirmed that he
is not entitled to these. We therefore are not prepared
to advise our client that he should submit to the
inevitable belittling of his claim and the intrusive
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Belkovic (Marek) v DSG International PLC and First Choice Selection Services
...skill on behalf of the defendants, and the MF drew my attention to a number of authorities on this issue including Hayhood v Ritchie [2005] NIQB 42, Murphy v Ford Motor Company 114 SOL.J. 886, Lane v Willis [1972] 1 AER 430, Prescott v Bulldog Tools Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 869, Hall v Avon Area......
- Belkovic v DSG International Plc and another