• 08 Mar 2023
• •
• 2 min read

Greyson v Fuller: Clarification of Sanctions for Non-Compliance with RTA Protocol

The High Court has ruled that a Claimant who fails to disclose their initial medical report in accordance with the RTA Protocol, before obtaining further reports, runs the risk of being unable to recover the costs of their medical reports, but will not suffer the sanction of being unable to rely upon the medical reports obtained.

The case

The case related to a claim arising out of a road-traffic accident which proceeded within the MOJ Portal and was subject to the rules of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (“the RTA Protocol”). Under paragraph 7.8B(2)(b) of the RTA Protocol, a first medical report is required to be disclosed prior to any subsequent report being obtained. In this case, the claimant obtained multiple reports from medical experts and disclosed all of these simultaneously at Stage 2 of the process. As disclosure was not sequential, the Defendant argued that any subsequent reports were not ‘justified’ under the RTA Protocol, which would impact their admissibility.

Mrs Justice Foster DBE held that the word ‘justified’ did not relate to the admissibility of the reports under the RTA Protocol, but instead as to whether the claimant is justified in seeking to reclaim the costs of obtaining any additional reports.

Consequences

It is clear from the judgment that the exclusion of medical reports as evidence is not going to be considered an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with paragraph 7.8B(2). It was outlined that the impact of failing to disclose the first medical report before obtaining further reports will lead to a risk that the Claimant will be unable to recover the costs of the subsequent reports.

When making an offer at Stage 2, where the Claimant has breached paragraph 7.8B(2)(b) of the RTA Protocol, the Defendant will have to take account of the overall prognosis periods provided within all reports, as the Claimant is entitled to rely upon the reports. The Defendant will have the opportunity to challenge the costs of the additional reports.

Claimants should be aware that, whilst all reports are admissible even if disclosed simultaneously, they face the risk of being unable to recover the costs of the subsequent reports.