The purposes of discovery include not only obtaining relevant evidence, but also reducing surprise and promoting fairness by putting parties in an equal position at trial, so that the parties are ‘playing with all the cards face up on the table’ the Master of the Rolls considered that there is ‘a duty of candour resting on the professional man’ and he concluded: ‘Accordingly the court has to have regard to all the circumstances although, in the nature of things, they are likely to be different in medical cases when contrasted, for example, with those involving barristers, solicitors, surveyors or accountants. The exercise of discretion has to be approached on the basis of the philosophy that the basic objective is always the achievement of true justice, which takes account of time, money and what can only be described as the anguish of uncertainty, as well as of a just outcome. It has to be exercised on the basis that the procedure of the courts must be, and is, intended to achieve the resolution of disputes by a variety of methods, of which a resolution by judgment is but one, and probably the least desirable. Accordingly anything which enables the parties to appreciate the true strength or weakness of their positions at the earliest possible moment and at the save time enables them to enter upon fully informed and realistic discussions designed to achieve a consensual resolution of dispute is very much in the public interest. ‘
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson MR
Citations:
[1987] 1 WLR 958, [1987] 2 All ER 353
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Evidence
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186048