Burke v Sema Group Medical Services [2002] EWCA Civ 1152 (12 July 2002)

Burke v Sema Group Medical Services [2002] EWCA Civ 1152 (12 July 2002)

The judge was entitled to find that the statements in the medical report were not deliberate falsehoods but reflected the doctors' professional opinions and findings. There was no evidence of malice or misrepresentation sufficient to sustain a claim for malicious falsehood. The applicant had accepted the accuracy of the recorded statements before the lower court, and the judge's factual conclusions were justified on the evidence.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1152
Parties
Claimant/applicant: David Mellory Burke; Defendants/respondents: Sema Group Medical Services (now Sema Group (UK) Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Medical Evidence, Disability Benefits, Costs, Appeal Procedure
Tort Civil Procedure Social Security Malicious Falsehood Medical Evidence Disability Benefits Costs Appeal Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mellory Burke

Claimant/applicant

Sema Group Medical Services (now Sema Group (UK) Limited)

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred in dismissing the claim for malicious falsehood against the medical services provider
  2. 2 Whether the medical report contained deliberate falsehoods affecting disability benefit entitlement
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider relevant evidence or misapplied legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that the statements in the medical report were not deliberate falsehoods but reflected the doctors' professional opinions and findings. There was no evidence of malice or misrepresentation sufficient to sustain a claim for malicious falsehood. The applicant had accepted the accuracy of the recorded statements before the lower court, and the judge's factual conclusions were justified on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to provision of transcript of evidence