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

Fifield v Denton Hall, Court of Appeal, 8 March 2006

14 March 2006
The issues

Case Management – Expert Evidence – Hearsay – Interpreting Medical Records – Procedure For Adducing Evidence In Medical Notes

The facts

This was a claim involving a secretaries’ upper limb disorder claimed as a work related injury. The Judge at first instance found the Defendant firm liable and on appeal the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim.

The decision

In dismissing the claim the Court of Appeal gave guidance in respect of the situation arising when a party wished to challenge a Claimant’s evidence on the basis of a contemporaneous note in medical records. Lord Justice Buxton gave guidance as to what procedure should be adopted in such cases.

What a doctor wrote down as having been told him by the patient (as opposed to an opinion he expressed on the basis of those statements) was not at that stage evidence of the making of the statement that he recorded.

The record was rather where used to contradict a patient’s evidence, a record of a previous inconsistent statement allegedly made by the patient. The record is therefore hearsay.

It may be proved as evidence in a number of ways. Firstly the statement may be put to the witness and the witness may admit to having made it. Secondly the statement may be adduced as hearsay evidence under Sections 1 and 6(5) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. If the Court concluded that an inconsistent statement had been made that went only to the credibility of the witness. The statement could not itself be treated as evidence of its content.

In this case none of these steps had been taken which had led to some difficulties in the course of the Trial.

In future, a party who sought to contradict a factually pleaded case on the basis of medical records or reports should indicate that intention in advance either by amending the pleadings or by an informal notice.

The opposite party should respond by indicating the extent to which they took objection to the accuracy of the records. When the area of dispute was identified a decision would have to be taken as to whether the records needed to be formally proved by either of the means referred to above.

Two consequences would follow. If these precautions had not been taken the Trial Judge might be reluctant to permit reference to reports of the patient’s statement in the medical records for the purpose of contradicting the patient’s evidence and any such reluctance was unlikely to be criticised by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, if there was an unreasonable failure to admit that such statements were made to the extent that it was necessary to call busy doctors to Court simply to prove the statements, then such failure of cooperation was likely to be penalised and possibly severely, in costs.

training and events


Insurer Insight event London office

Developed for insurers, this exclusive series of events will provide you with operational and practical insights from across the legal spectrum.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Insurance Product Value and the duty to act in the best interests of customers: risks from intermediary remuneration

On 19 November 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) published “Finalised guidance” (FG19/5) for “insurance product manufacturers and distributors”.


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