The High Court ordered that a man’s disclosure of expert reports in his personal injury action against Cork City Council and Cork County Council be conditional on an undertaking from the first named defendant. The council must agree not to give the reports, directly or indirectly, to any expert it retains until after that expert has delivered a report.
The ruling, delivered by Kearns P. on 30 January 2015, resolved a dispute about the timing and handling of expert evidence. It did not decide the underlying personal injury claim.
The proceedings began with a personal injuries summons dated 17 August 2011. The plaintiff claims damages for alleged injuries sustained while removing an injured person from a vehicle at an accident scene on or about 30 October 2010.
The plaintiff had provided a schedule of intended expert reports in March 2012. The first defendant’s September 2013 schedule listed witnesses but disclosed no expert reports, while reserving the right to call expert evidence or produce reports as matters arose. The first defendant later sought copies of the plaintiff’s reports. The plaintiff refused unless the council undertook not to pass them to any expert it might commission before that expert completed a report.
The plaintiff argued that disclosure without this safeguard could give the first defendant an unfair advantage. The first defendant opposed the condition, arguing that the rules did not entitle a party to withhold reports because the other side had no expert, and that its experts had an independent duty to the court.
The court held that fairness required simultaneous exchange of expert reports, and that this requirement was not displaced because the first defendant had no reports at that point. It said the plaintiff’s concern about a possible litigation advantage had a foundation, while making no finding that the council had adopted a calculated strategy. The court also said there was no suggestion that the first defendant did not intend, or lacked the means, to retain an expert.
Because the first defendant had certified that it had no report to furnish, the plaintiff was required to provide his reports, a duty he accepted. The court made that disclosure conditional on the undertaking. The judgment records no determination of liability, damages, or the underlying injury allegations.