Galvin v. Murray [2000] IESC 78 (21st December, 2000)

Galvin v. Murray [2000] IESC 78 (21st December, 2000)

Engineers employed by a party are experts within the meaning of the Disclosure Rules. If a party intends to call such employees to give expert evidence, their reports must be disclosed. Employment status affects weight, not the obligation to disclose.

Citation
[2000] IESC 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (unnamed); Defendant: Cork County Council; Third Party: Third Party (unnamed driver)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From High Court Order on Expert Report Disclosure
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order reversed; matter remitted for further consideration of possible redactions.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Disclosure of Reports, Privilege, Personal Injuries Litigation
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Disclosure of Reports Privilege Personal Injuries 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (unnamed)

Plaintiff

Cork County Council

Defendant

Third Party (unnamed driver)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From High Court Order on Expert Report Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether in-house engineers employed by a party qualify as 'experts' under the Disclosure Rules for the purpose of report disclosure
  2. 2 Whether reports by such in-house experts are subject to mandatory disclosure under Order 39 Rules 45 and 46

Ratio Decidendi

Engineers employed by a party are experts within the meaning of the Disclosure Rules. If a party intends to call such employees to give expert evidence, their reports must be disclosed. Employment status affects weight, not the obligation to disclose.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order reversed; matter remitted for further consideration of possible redactions.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of Mr Justice Johnson reversed.
  • Matter remitted to High Court to allow Respondents to argue for deletion of parts of engineers' reports before disclosure.