MARVA GREYSON v RYAN FULLER

MARVA GREYSON v RYAN FULLER

Simultaneous rather than sequential disclosure of medical reports under the RTA Protocol does not render subsequent reports automatically inadmissible at Stage 3; the sanction is a risk of costs penalty, not exclusion of evidence. The court retains discretion to admit such evidence if necessary to properly determine the claim. There was no failure of proper service under PD8B 6, and it was unnecessary to invoke PD8B 7.1(3) discretion in this case.

Parties
Claimant: Marva Greyson; Defendant: Ryan Fuller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal From County Court Decision on Preliminary Issue Regarding Medical Report Disclosure Under RTA Protocol
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Claimant's cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocols, Medical Evidence Disclosure, Costs Sanctions, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Pre Action Protocols Medical Evidence Disclosure Costs Sanctions Relief From Sanctions

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

Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal From County Court Decision on Preliminary Issue Regarding Medical Report Disclosure Under RTA Protocol

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 a costs penalty
  3. 3 Whether the court has discretion to admit such evidence under PD8B 7.1(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Simultaneous rather than sequential disclosure of medical reports under the RTA Protocol does not render subsequent reports automatically inadmissible at Stage 3; the sanction is a risk of costs penalty, not exclusion of evidence. The court retains discretion to admit such evidence if necessary to properly determine the claim. There was no failure of proper service under PD8B 6, and it was unnecessary to invoke PD8B 7.1(3) discretion in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Claimant's cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • The sanction for simultaneous disclosure is a risk of costs penalty, not exclusion of evidence.
  • There was no failure of proper service under PD8B 6.