Gough v Mummery [2002] EWCA Civ 265 (11 February 2002)

Gough v Mummery [2002] EWCA Civ 265 (11 February 2002)

Permission to appeal is granted because, although the applicant's solicitors were at fault for not disclosing the existence of two versions of the medical letter and not being prepared to explain the discrepancy at trial, the interests of justice require that the court consider the further evidence explaining the error, given the exceptional circumstances.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 265
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Russell Paul Gough; Defendant/respondent: Martin Gary Mummery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Admission of Further Evidence, Adjournment, Overriding Objective

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Paul Gough

Claimant/applicant

Martin Gary Mummery

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment to clarify conflicting medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether further evidence explaining the existence of two versions of a medical letter should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted because, although the applicant's solicitors were at fault for not disclosing the existence of two versions of the medical letter and not being prepared to explain the discrepancy at trial, the interests of justice require that the court consider the further evidence explaining the error, given the exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application allowed