Heyward v Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY,Lady Justice Smith,LADY JUSTICE SMITH |
Judgment Date | 20 June 2005 |
Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 455 |
Docket Number | B3/2004/2151 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Date | 20 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
Lord Justice Mummery
Lady Justice Smith
B3/2004/2151
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)
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.
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.
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.
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