The plaintiff had been injured when, as a passenger in his employer’s security van, it turned over as it left the motorway. Liability was not disputed but the defendants alleged that the plaintiff was malingering and said that they had video evidence to support this claim. The defendants now now appealed against an order for the disclosure of the film.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The ‘cards on the table’ approach which now operates in my view requires that it should be very rare indeed in a personal injury case for an order for non-disclosure of a video film to be made. ‘
Judges:
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Steyn, Rose LJJ
Citations:
[1994] EWCA Civ 19, [1994] PIQR 286, [1994] 3 All ER 545, [1994] 1 WLR 1204
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Superceded – McGuiness v Kellogg Co of Great Britain Ltd CA 1988
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries. The defendants had refused to disclose the evidene they wished to bring to establish that he hwas not as severely injured as he had claimed.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal against refusal of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.263219
