Worrall v Reich
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 1955 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1955] EWCA Civ J0111-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 11 January 1955 |
[1955] EWCA Civ J0111-1
Lord Justice Jenkins
and
Lord Justice Morris.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Interlocutory List.)
Counsel for the Appellant: MR J. RITCHIE. instructed by Messrs Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.
Counsel for the Respondent: MR I.F. REUBEN, instructed by Messrs Bryan O'Connor & Co.
This is an appeal by the Defendant in an action for personal injuries, with leave obtained from the learned Judge, from an Order of Mr Justice Glyn-Jones dismissing an appeal from the Order for Directions made by the Master.
The sole matter in issue in the appeal is whether the second paragraph of the Order was rightly made by the learned Master in the form in which it was made. That part of the Order is in the terms of paragraph 23 of the Summons for Directions. The Summons is based on Form 3A in Appendix K to the Rules of the Supreme Court, but paragraph 23 has been altered in this way. The Paragraph as printed is that: "A medical report be agreed, if possible, and that, if not, the medical evidence be limited to two witnesses for each party." In the present Summons the words "A medical report be agreed, if possible, and that, of not" are struck out and in lieu there of these words are inserted: "Exchange medical reports if not agreed the medical evidence be limited to two witnesses for each party", and the Order under appeal adopts this altered term or direction.
I take it to mean that as in the printed form a medical report is to be agreed if possible, but failing agreement, then there is to be an exchange of medical reports, and medical evidence given at the trial is to be limited to two witnesses for each party.
The Order under appeal was made under the new Order XXX which deals with Summonses for Directions, and was adopted in 1954 to give effect to the recommendations of the Evershed Report. There is no doubt that the order gives ample powers to the Master with a view to saving expense and delay in the trial of suctions.
For the present purpose I think i need only refer to Rule 6 of the Order, which provides as follows so far as material. Paragraph (1): "No affidavit shall be used on the hearing of the summons for directions except bythe leave or direction of the Court or Judge, but, subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) of this Rule, it shall be the duty of the parties to the action and their advisers to give all such information and produces all such documents to the Court or Judge on any hearing of the summons as it or he may reasonably require for the purposes of enabling it or him properly to deal with the Summons. The Court or Judge may, if it appears proper so to do in the circumstances, authorise any such information or documents to be given or produced to the Court or Judge without being disclosed to the other parties, but, in the absence of such an authority, any information or documents given or produced under this paragraph shall be given or produced to all the parties present or represented on the hearing of the Summons as well as to the Court or Judge."
Then Paragraph (3): "If the Court: or Judge on any hearing of the summons for directions requires a party to the action or his solicitor or counsel to give any information or produce any document and that information or document is not given or produced, then, subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) of this Rule, the Court or Judge may - (a) cause the facts to be recorded in the order with a view to such special order, if any, as to costs as may be just being made at the trial; or (b) if it appears to the Court or Judge to be just so to do, order the whole or any part of the pleadings of the party concerned to be struck out, or, if the party is plaintiff or the claimant under a counterclaim, order the action or counterclaim to be dismissed upon such terms as may be just."
The object of these provisions clearly is to ensure so far as possible that the parties (to use a colloquialism) put all their cards on. The table so that the real issues between than emerge and the amount of evidencenecessary to be given, whether documentary or oral, may be limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Causton v Mann Egerton (Johnsons) Ltd
...reports to the defendants. So the defendants wore quite entitled to say that they would not disclose theirs, nor exchange them. See Worrall v. Reich (1955) 1 Q. B. 296. 6 Meanwhile the plaintiff had been examined by doctors on his own behalf. These were Mr. Hucknall, an ophthalmologist of K......
-
Clarke v Martlew
...to the same efect. 11 The reasons why medical reports should be exchanged were well stated by Lord Justice Morris - as he then was - in Worral v. Reich (195.5) 1 Q.B. 296 at page 300. He says: "In cases where personal injuries have been caused, I think it is proper and desirable that the me......
- Dea Ai Eng v Dr Wong Seak Shoon
-
Scc v B
...ER 403, [1997] 1 WLR 257, CA. Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521, [1979] 2 All ER 1169, [1979] 3 WLR 150, HL. Worrall v Reich [1955] 1 QB 296, [1955] 1 All ER 363, [1955] 2 WLR 338, ApplicationIn the course of care proceedings in respect of triplet the guardian ad litem, supported......