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

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

Simultaneous disclosure of multiple medical reports contrary to RTA Protocol 7.8B(2) does not render subsequent reports inadmissible; the sanction is limited to costs, and the court retains discretion to admit such evidence if necessary to properly determine the claim.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 211 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Marva Greyson; Defendant: Ryan Fuller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocols, Road Traffic Accidents, Medical Evidence Disclosure, Costs Sanctions, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Pre Action Protocols Road Traffic Accidents Medical Evidence Disclosure 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marva Greyson

Claimant

Ryan Fuller

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether simultaneous disclosure of multiple medical reports in a soft-tissue RTA claim under the Protocol renders subsequent reports inadmissible or merely affects costs recovery
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'justified' in RTA Protocol paragraph 7.8B(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Simultaneous disclosure of multiple medical reports contrary to RTA Protocol 7.8B(2) does not render subsequent reports inadmissible; the sanction is limited to costs, and the court retains discretion to admit such evidence if necessary to properly determine the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to rely on all medical reports disclosed.
  • No exclusion of evidence for simultaneous disclosure; costs sanction may apply.