By Owen Reid
The Court of Appeal has upheld an order requiring Tinka Zapryanova to give the defendant in her personal injuries case copies of the medical reports she intends to rely on at trial.
Zapryanova's proceedings against Martins Nipers Niperovics arise from a road traffic collision on 13 November 2017. The action was issued in February 2021. The defendant has admitted liability, meaning the remaining issue for trial is the amount of damages, rather than responsibility for the collision.
In November 2025, High Court judge Mr Justice Coffey directed Zapryanova to provide her intended medical reports within two weeks. The defendant was ordered to provide his intended reports in return. If Zapryanova intended to rely on no medical reports, she was required simply to say so.
She appealed, arguing among other things that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make the order when the matter was listed only "for mention", that the application was procedurally defective and that the perfected order incorrectly referred to the defendant's solicitors as "Dillon Eustace" rather than "Dillon Eustace LLP".
Ms Justice Faherty rejected those arguments. She found that the November order was the culmination of repeated High Court attendances arising from a case-management motion filed in November 2024. Zapryanova had been aware for a considerable period that disclosure of her intended medical evidence was required to progress the case.
The court also held that the omission of "LLP" from the solicitors' name on the order did not make it invalid. Dillon Eustace LLP was clearly the firm on record for the defendant.
The appeal court stressed that appellate courts should interfere only rarely with High Court case-management decisions. It found no irremediable prejudice to Zapryanova and rejected her argument that the order forced her to rely on flawed medical evidence, noting that she only had to disclose reports she chose to use.
The appeal was dismissed. The court also refused her request for a stay on the High Court order, saying the case should now progress to trial.