Mearns v Smedvig Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 76 (25 November 1998)

Mearns v Smedvig Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 76 (25 November 1998)

The court refused to compel the pursuer to submit to examination by a person lacking recognised medical or professional qualifications using a novel and untested system, holding that the pursuer's objections were reasonable, that the defenders had already been afforded all usual opportunities for examination by qualified experts, and that justice did not require overriding the pursuer's right to privacy in these circumstances.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 76
Parties
Pursuer: John Michie Mearns; Defenders: Smedvig Limited & Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Motion Regarding Medical Examination
Outcome
Motion refused
Legal Topics
Compulsory Medical Examination, Expert Evidence, Invasion of Privacy, Discretion of Court
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Compulsory Medical Examination Expert Evidence Invasion of Privacy Discretion of Court

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michie Mearns

Pursuer

Smedvig Limited & Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Motion Regarding Medical Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should compel the pursuer to submit to a medical examination by a person lacking recognised medical or professional qualifications using a novel system (Blankenship System)
  2. 2 Whether refusal to undergo such examination prejudices the just determination of the cause

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to compel the pursuer to submit to examination by a person lacking recognised medical or professional qualifications using a novel and untested system, holding that the pursuer's objections were reasonable, that the defenders had already been afforded all usual opportunities for examination by qualified experts, and that justice did not require overriding the pursuer's right to privacy in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Motion refused

Orders

  • The motion to compel the pursuer to submit to examination by Tom Grant or any other consultant of the Blankenship System is refused.