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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants an order for discovery of various categories of documentation in a personal injuries matter arising from a mountaineering accident, but also restricts discovery where the categories were irrelevant, unnecessary or too vague.
Discovery - personal injuries - plaintiff fell 574 feet during a team building mountaineering exercise he alleges he was given no ability to opt out of and no instruction in – now tetraplegic and with a reduced life expectancy – discovery sought against both Defendants – second named defendant consented – first did not – communications sought between first named defendants in relation to taking leave during team building periods – disproportionate – names and positions of all persons notified of and who participated in the exercise irrelevant and a matter for particulars – evaluation of equipment used by plaintiff allowed so long as such is not covered by other categories – statements made by individuals in relation to accident report specific and not disproportionate – all feedback related to ‘away days’ too general, category altered to all safety related feedback – all documentation related to ‘away days’ too general – plaintiff’s personnel file limited to such documents as are relevant to the first named defendant’s claims of contributory negligence and the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition - enquiries made by first named defendant into second named defendants expertise unnecessary as covered by other conditions – choice of mountain irrelevant – communications between first named defendant and HSE entirely reasonable
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.