Heyward v Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE MUMMERY,Lady Justice Smith,LADY JUSTICE SMITH
Judgment Date20 June 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWCA Civ 455
Docket NumberB3/2004/2151
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date20 June 2005

[2005] EWCA Civ 455

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM PLYMOUTH COUNTY COURT

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE OVEREND)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2A 2LL

Before

Lord Justice Mummery

Lady Justice Smith

B3/2004/2151

Michael Heyward
Applicant
and
Plymouth Hospital Nhs Trust
Defendant

MR ANDREW BUCHAN (instructed by Messrs Nash & Co, Devon PL4 9BD) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

The Defendant did not attend and was not represented

(Approved by the Court)

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
1

We are going to grant permission to appeal in this case and, as it is a second appeal, I will ask Lady Justice Smith to state briefly the reasons why we have reached this decision.

LADY JUSTICE SMITH
2

This is a stress case in which the issues are mainly factual. The claimant contends that the circumstances of his work created a foreseeable risk of psychiatric harm. The defence expressly puts that in issue. It appears to us that it is clearly arguable that the claimant needs expert evidence to support his contention on that issue. It may well be that the defendants, being quite a large organisation, will have an employee who is able to provide their evidence on that issue without resort to an outside expert. If so, the claimant would be at an unacceptable disadvantage; there would be inequality of arms.

3

The claimant's application to instruct and call a second expert was made before disclosure of evidence. If the claimant waits until disclosure of evidence within this action and then seeks an expert report, the trial would be delayed and the claimant criticised. Accordingly, although this is a second appeal from a case-management decision, we think it right to grant leave. We are of the view that there is an important principle at stake—that of potential inequality of arms. If the point is not an important point of principle we do consider that there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be considered because the matter is of significant importance in the context of this individual case.

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
4

I agree.

(Application granted; to be heard before two Lords Justices and one High Court Judge; time estimate half a day).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT