0370 270 6000

Lucas v Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2003

29 July 2003
The issues

Disclosure – expert evidence – whether documents provided to an expert were disclosable.

The facts

The Claimant brought an action for personal injuries. With his Particulars of Claim he served two experts reports. Both reports referred to a witness statement that the Claimant had given and a previous report of an expert. The Defendants relying on CPR 31.14(2) asked for those documents to be disclosed. (CPR 31.14(2) reads Îsubject to rule 35.10(4), a party may apply for an Order for inspection of any document mentioned in an experts report which has not already been disclosed in the proceedings’. Part 35.10 provides that whilst an expert’s report must state the substance of all material instructions, and whilst the instructions shall not be privileged against disclosure, the Court will not in relation to those instructions order disclosure of specific documents÷..) The Defendants obtained an Order from the Master, the Claimant appealed. The Claimant relied upon, amongst other matters the decision of Morland J in Taylor v Bolton Heath Health Authority in which the Judge preferred a very narrow construction of the word Îinstructions’ and held that this amounted to no more than the words telling the expert what to do and excluded the material upon which he was asked to comply with his instructions.

The decision

1. ÎInstructions’ should be interpreted widely. They included the information supplied by the Claimant and all the material which a solicitor places in front of the expert in order to gain advise. The rules required a full setting out of the facts in the instructions and to that extent privilege is waived. The Court however will only make an order for disclosure of a document where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the statement of instructions is inaccurate or incomplete. Thus the instructing party is protected from a waiving of privilege in respect of specific documents.

2. In this case there was no suggestion that the material instructions were in any way inaccurate. Therefore the Claimant was entitled to the protection of CPR 35.10(4). On these facts therefore whilst Taylor v Bolton was no longer good law the disclosure would be refused and the appeal allowed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


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