Payne -v- Shovlin & ors [2006] IESC 5 (09 February 2006)

Payne -v- Shovlin & ors [2006] IESC 5 (09 February 2006)

All reports from an expert intended to be called at trial, which contain in whole or in part the substance of the evidence to be given, must be disclosed under S.I. 391/1998, even if a later, more comprehensive report is produced. The rule is interpreted to require production of all such reports to avoid surprise and ensure full disclosure, overriding litigation privilege to that extent.

Citation
[2006] IESC 5
Parties
Plaintiff: David Payne; Defendant: Philip Shovlin; Defendant: Ken McDonald; Defendant: Michael Hutchinson
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from High Court) / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Expert Reports, Legal Professional Privilege, Personal Injuries Actions, Interpretation of Statutory Rules
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Disclosure of Expert Reports Legal Professional Privilege Personal Injuries Actions Interpretation of Statutory Rules

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Payne

Plaintiff

Philip Shovlin

Defendant

Ken McDonald

Defendant

Michael Hutchinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from High Court) / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether preliminary expert reports must be disclosed under S.I. 391/1998 if the expert is to be called at trial
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'report containing the substance of the evidence to be adduced' under Order 39, Rule 46

Ratio Decidendi

All reports from an expert intended to be called at trial, which contain in whole or in part the substance of the evidence to be given, must be disclosed under S.I. 391/1998, even if a later, more comprehensive report is produced. The rule is interpreted to require production of all such reports to avoid surprise and ensure full disclosure, overriding litigation privilege to that extent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Affirmation of High Court order requiring disclosure of both preliminary and final expert reports by Dr. Harvey