An order for the medical examination of a party to an action is an invasion of personal liberty, and and should only be granted when it is reasonable in the interests of justice so to order, and when the refusal of a medical examination is alleged to be unreasonable. The Court has jurisdiction to grant a stay whenever it was just and reasonable so to do and could do so where the Plaintiff’s refusal was such as to prevent the just determination of the cause. Sachs LJ said: ‘[when] refusal of a medical examination is alleged to be unreasonable, the onus lies on the party who says that it is unreasonable and who applies for the order to show, on the particular facts of the case, that he is unable properly to prepare his claim (or defence) without that examination. The onus lies firmly on the applicant, as counsel for the defendants very rightly conceded.’
Judges:
Sachs LJ
Citations:
[1972] I WLR 333, [1972] 1 All ER 430
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Government Communications Headquarters v Bacchus EAT 6-Aug-2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Claimant’s claims included disability discrimination claims arising out of anxiety and depression. The Claimant refused to co-operate with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.463770