Healy v Corporation of Lloyds

Healy v Corporation of Lloyds

There was no procedural defect in the trial judge's conduct. The refusal to adjourn or admit late evidence was within the judge's discretion and consistent with established legal principles. The claimant's lack of representation resulted from her own actions and misunderstanding of the expert's duty, not from any unfairness in the proceedings.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Pauline Healy; Defendant/respondent: Corporation of Lloyds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (assessment of Damages)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permanent Health Insurance, Damages Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Adjournment, Expert Evidence
Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Permanent Health Insurance Damages Assessment Procedural Fairness Adjournment Expert Evidence

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Healy

Claimant/appellant

Corporation of Lloyds

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (assessment of Damages)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment to obtain updated medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to consider late medical evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial was procedurally unfair due to the claimant being unrepresented

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural defect in the trial judge's conduct. The refusal to adjourn or admit late evidence was within the judge's discretion and consistent with established legal principles. The claimant's lack of representation resulted from her own actions and misunderstanding of the expert's duty, not from any unfairness in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs up to 27 January 2004
  • No order as to costs thereafter