0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Chrichard v Devon County Council, 15 July 2003

22 July 2003
The issues

Disclosure – Documents – Duty to Disclose under the Protocol – Highways – trip

The facts

The Claimant sought discovery of documents in a highway tripping case that were not included within the standard pre-action disclosure list for such claims under the personal injury protocol.

The Defendant queried the relevance of the documents requested and resisted disclosure arguing that the obligations under the protocol were onerous enough particularly as there was no prospect of recovering costs, regardless of the outcome of the claim.

Specifically, the Claimant sought disclosure of post accident inspection and maintenance records and details of the number of inspections the inspector had carried out on the day of the pre accident inspection.

The Claimant argued that it was necessary to have sight of these documents to test the strength of the defence advanced by the Defendant under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980. The Defendant conceded that the request may seem reasonable in isolation but the Court should have regard to the wider implications of increasing the burden upon the Defendant and their insurers. The Defendant argued that had the protocol envisioned such documents as important for the purposes of determining the issues prior to litigation they would have been included within the standard disclosure list.

The decision

It was important to strike a balance between the problems faced by Defendants in terms of expense and whether the information requested came within the spirit of the protocol.

It was accepted that the disclosure list under the protocol was not an exhaustive list. However, it was quite detailed and had other documents been intended to be included they would have been. The documents requested by the Claimant were not within the spirit of the protocol. The Claimant was trying to find something out that at this stage they were not entitled to. The Defendant was entitled to take a policy decision not to disclose documents that were not listed within the standard disclosure list although documents that did fall within the spirit of the list should be disclosed.


For further information please contact Daniel Turner at danielturner@veitchpenny.co.uk

focus on...

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.


Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.


Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.


Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up