R v R [2002] EWCA Civ 409 (19 February 2002)

R v R [2002] EWCA Civ 409 (19 February 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of the joint medical expert. Given the complexity, evolving medical knowledge, and the need for clarification on key issues affecting quantum, the court's overriding objective required allowing cross-examination to ensure a just outcome. The judge's failure to provide adequate reasons and to appreciate the necessity of oral evidence in this context was a fundamental error.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 409
Parties
Appellant/defendant: National Health Trust; Respondents/claimants: R and R (parents of children)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (medical Negligence/wrongful Birth) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Wrongful Birth, Quantum of Damages, Cross Examination of Joint Expert, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)
Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Wrongful Birth Quantum of Damages Cross Examination of Joint Expert Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Health Trust

Appellant/defendant

R and R (parents of children)

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (medical Negligence/wrongful Birth) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of a jointly instructed medical expert on life expectancy and treatment issues in a wrongful birth claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of the joint medical expert. Given the complexity, evolving medical knowledge, and the need for clarification on key issues affecting quantum, the court's overriding objective required allowing cross-examination to ensure a just outcome. The judge's failure to provide adequate reasons and to appreciate the necessity of oral evidence in this context was a fundamental error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside; cross-examination of the joint expert (Professor) permitted in specified areas.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.