Samantha Danyelle Clarke v Matthew Poole & Ors

Samantha Danyelle Clarke v Matthew Poole & Ors

The appropriate test for ordering a stay pending medical testing is a three-stage evaluative process: (1) whether the interests of justice require the test, (2) whether the claimant has a substantial, non-illusory objection, and (3) a balancing of the parties' competing rights to determine if a stay is just and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Samantha Danyelle Clarke; Defendant: Matthew Poole; Defendant: Andrej Borisenkov; Defendant: Great Lakes Insurance SE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Medical Testing
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Medical Examination in Litigation, Stay of Proceedings, Damages Assessment, Personal Liberty Vs. Litigation Rights
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Medical Examination in Litigation Stay of Proceedings Damages Assessment Personal Liberty Vs. Litigation Rights

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Samantha Danyelle Clarke

Claimant

Matthew Poole

Defendant

Andrej Borisenkov

Defendant

Great Lakes Insurance SE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Medical Testing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's refusal to undergo neurophysiological (EMG) testing should result in a stay of her claim for future loss
  2. 2 Whether the court should order a stay unless the claimant submits to medical testing
  3. 3 What is the correct legal test for ordering a stay in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate test for ordering a stay pending medical testing is a three-stage evaluative process: (1) whether the interests of justice require the test, (2) whether the claimant has a substantial, non-illusory objection, and (3) a balancing of the parties' competing rights to determine if a stay is just and proportionate. In this case, the balance favours a stay of the claim for future loss unless the claimant undergoes EMG testing or concedes, for litigation purposes, that she has active symptoms of myotonic dystrophy.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • The claimant's claim for damages for future loss will be stayed unless she either undergoes EMG neurophysiological testing to determine active symptoms of myotonic dystrophy or concedes, for litigation purposes, that she has active symptoms and damages should be assessed on that basis.