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.
Parties
Russell Paul Gough
Claimant/applicant
Martin Gary Mummery
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment to clarify conflicting medical evidence
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment