Defendant failed to articulate true nature of application for inspection and further and better discovery

Discovery – medical negligence – medical notes – chronology- reasons for discovery - principles as to discovery – types of discovery order – redactions - a party is under no obligation to disclose any documents coming into existence after the date of discovery, although there remains a clear obligation on a party to remedy any failure to make proper discovery in the first place - jurisdiction to direct discovery of documents arising after the original discovery process was complete must be exercised sparingly and only in the most exceptional circumstances and should involve only documents which are likely to be important (rather than tangentially relevant) to the case and which can be readily identified – timing of the application - report does not provide sufficient information, particular to this case and this Plaintiff, to allow me to form the requisite judgment in the Defendant’s favour on an issue on which the Defendant bears the onus of proof – no substantial injustice will be done by refusing the Defendant the relief sought - defendant’s failure to articulate, and so address the legal principles relating to, the true nature of the present application as being for inspection, further and better discovery and additional discovery, as opposed to “ordinary” discovery and also the absence of any factual basis for inferring the likely existence of any discoverable documents beyond those already in the Defendant’s possession or any relevant pre-accident medical history, and hence the failure to identify that specific documents are likely to exist which documents would have a significant and important relevance of a specified and identifiable kind – refuse order - direct that an affidavit be sworn by her explaining the error in relation to number of attendances – reliefs refused –