Greyson v Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB) (28 January 2022)

Greyson v Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB) (28 January 2022)

Simultaneous rather than sequential disclosure of medical reports under the RTA Protocol does not render subsequent reports inadmissible at Stage 3; the sanction for such non-compliance is a risk of costs penalty, not exclusion of evidence. The reports were properly served, and the court is not compelled to exclude them. The Protocol's primary sanction for procedural breaches is in costs, not admissibility.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 211
Parties
Claimant: Marva Greyson; Defendant: Ryan Fuller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Regarding Interpretation of RTA Protocol and Admissibility of Medical Reports
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocols, Road Traffic Accidents, Medical Evidence, Costs Sanctions, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Pre Action Protocols Road Traffic Accidents Medical Evidence Costs Sanctions Admissibility of 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marva Greyson

Claimant

Ryan Fuller

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Regarding Interpretation of RTA Protocol and Admissibility of Medical Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether simultaneous disclosure of multiple medical reports under the RTA Protocol renders subsequent reports unjustified and inadmissible at Stage 3
  2. 2 Whether the sanction for non-sequential disclosure is exclusion of evidence or costs consequences

Ratio Decidendi

Simultaneous rather than sequential disclosure of medical reports under the RTA Protocol does not render subsequent reports inadmissible at Stage 3; the sanction for such non-compliance is a risk of costs penalty, not exclusion of evidence. The reports were properly served, and the court is not compelled to exclude them. The Protocol's primary sanction for procedural breaches is in costs, not admissibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Claimant is permitted to rely on all medical reports disclosed.
  • No exclusion of evidence for simultaneous disclosure; any sanction is limited to costs.