Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Discovery is relevant and necessary to personal injuries proceedings
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court makes an order for discovery in favour of the third defendant against the first defendant in personal injury proceedings, on the grounds that: (a) the first defendant was incorrect to contend in correspondence that the pleadings were not closed in the context of a claim by a fellow defendant who had served a notice of indemnity and contribution, in the absence of any application to the court for directions as to pleadings; (b) the first defendant only sought particulars after the issuing of the motion and is therefore not a bar to discovery; (c) the reminder letters cured any technical issue with regards to the request for discovery being served before the notice of indemnity and contribution was served; and (d) the documents were relevant and necessary.
Application for discovery brought by third defendant against first defendant - proceedings arose in circumstances where the plaintiff alleges that he suffered personal injuries in falling from scaffolding at the site - the first defendant is the main contractor - the third defendant is a bricklayer and subcontractor that employed the plaintiff - the defence of the third-named defendant denies that any injuries were occasioned by the negligence of that defendant, contends that any liability attaches to the other defendants and pleads contributory negligence - the third-named defendant sent a discovery letter to the first-named defendant and the following day served a notice of indemnity and contribution against all defendants - the first defendant argued that the request was premature when the pleadings had not closed - whether the pleadings were not closed because the defence had not been served - Order 16, r. 12(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether the pleadings were not closed because particulars had not been furnished - whether the request for discovery premature because the notice of indemnity and contribution had not been issued at the time of the request itself - whether the discovery was necessary and relevant - discovery, with minor amendments made to two categories, granted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
