Payne v. Shovlin & Ors [2004] IEHC 430 (17 December 2004)

Payne v. Shovlin & Ors [2004] IEHC 430 (17 December 2004)

Preliminary expert reports prepared by an expert intended to be called at trial, which contain the substance of the evidence to be adduced, must be disclosed under Order 39 Rule 46. The fact that an expert's views have evolved does not exempt earlier reports from disclosure, and no sufficient reason in the interests of justice was shown to exclude such reports from disclosure.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 430
Parties
Plaintiff: David Payne; Defendant: Phil Shovlin; Defendant: Ken McDonald; Defendant: Michael Hutchinson
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Application Regarding Disclosure of Expert Reports
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Expert Reports, Legal Professional Privilege, Interpretation of Court Rules, Personal Injury Litigation
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Disclosure of Expert Reports Legal Professional Privilege Interpretation of Court Rules Personal Injury Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Payne

Plaintiff

Phil Shovlin

Defendant

Ken McDonald

Defendant

Michael Hutchinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Application Regarding Disclosure of Expert Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether preliminary expert reports must be disclosed under Order 39 Rule 46 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether legal professional privilege protects preliminary expert reports from disclosure
  3. 3 Whether comments by an expert on opposing expert reports must be disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

Preliminary expert reports prepared by an expert intended to be called at trial, which contain the substance of the evidence to be adduced, must be disclosed under Order 39 Rule 46. The fact that an expert's views have evolved does not exempt earlier reports from disclosure, and no sufficient reason in the interests of justice was shown to exclude such reports from disclosure.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Plaintiff required to disclose both the preliminary and final reports of Dr. Harvey under Order 39 Rule 46.