Bergan v Evans (St Christopher and Nevis)

Bergan v Evans (St Christopher and Nevis)

Permission under CPR rule 32.6 is required to deploy medical expert evidence in personal injury litigation, regardless of compliance with section 163 of the Evidence Act or attachment of medical reports to the claim form. Section 163 governs admissibility, not deployment. A defective defence under rule 10.6 does not automatically entitle the claimant to deploy medical reports without permission, but provides strong grounds for the court to grant such permission.

Parties
Appellant: Keithlyn Bergan; Respondent: Sheryl Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Medical Reports, Case Management, Pleadings, Admissibility
Civil Procedure Evidence Law Personal Injury Expert Evidence Medical Reports Case Management Pleadings Admissibility

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keithlyn Bergan

Appellant

Sheryl Evans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attaching medical reports to a claim form in personal injury cases removes the requirement for court permission to deploy expert evidence under CPR rule 32.6
  2. 2 Whether section 163 of the Evidence Act provides an independent route for admissibility and deployment of medical expert evidence, bypassing CPR rule 32.6
  3. 3 Consequences of defective defence under CPR rule 10.6 in personal injury claims

Ratio Decidendi

Permission under CPR rule 32.6 is required to deploy medical expert evidence in personal injury litigation, regardless of compliance with section 163 of the Evidence Act or attachment of medical reports to the claim form. Section 163 governs admissibility, not deployment. A defective defence under rule 10.6 does not automatically entitle the claimant to deploy medical reports without permission, but provides strong grounds for the court to grant such permission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Permission to deploy Dr Laws' and Dr Hendrickson's evidence is required under CPR rule 32.6; such permission should be granted as a formality given the circumstances.
  • The judge's directions permitting deployment of Dr Hendrickson's report and attendance for oral evidence are upheld.