Agnes Armstrong v Sean Moffatt & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff commenced a personal injury claim against three medical practitioners concerning injuries allegedly sustained during treatment at a medical centre on 15th May 2009. The Plaintiff, aged 67 at the time, asserts that she slipped and fell from an examination couch, resulting in a fractured right hip, subsequent surgery, hospitalisation, and ongoing complications including a right foot drop. The claim is not for medical negligence but arises from an accident attributed to the Defendants' negligence and breach of duty. The Defendants have not yet filed a defence, pending resolution of the dispute over the extent to which the Plaintiff must respond to a notice for particulars served on 23rd November 2011. The Court is also asked to reconsider how the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 ("the 2004 Act") affects the traditional approach to particulars in personal injury cases.

Legal Issues Presented

1. To what extent is the Plaintiff required to respond to the notice for particulars served by the Defendants?
2. How has the enactment of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 altered the traditional understanding regarding the provision of particulars in personal injury cases?

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff's solicitors indicated they would only respond to requests for particulars insofar as such requests fall within section 11 of the 2004 Act, declining to answer detailed requests framed in the old practice format.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants argued that section 11 of the 2004 Act does not limit the scope of particulars they may request and maintained that their notice for particulars was reasonable and arose from matters pleaded in the personal injuries summons.
• They contended that the Plaintiff's refusal to respond to the notice was a matter for the Court to determine in terms of reasonableness.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging the significant changes introduced by the 2004 Act, which require personal injury pleadings to contain detailed particulars, verified by affidavit, thereby reducing the necessity for extensive further particulars. The Court noted that while the general principles governing particulars remain unchanged—that they serve to clarify the case and avoid unfair surprise—the manner of their application must adapt to the statutory framework.

The Court examined the specific requests made by the Defendants in the notice for particulars. It distinguished between legitimate particulars arising directly from the pleadings and impermissible interrogatories or irrelevant requests. For example, questions about legal costs insurance and the exact time of the accident were disallowed as irrelevant or outside the pleadings. Similarly, requests for witness identities and narrative accounts of the accident were rejected as attempts to elicit evidence rather than clarify pleadings.

The Court emphasized that particulars must relate to matters already pleaded and serve to inform the opposing party of the "broad outline" of the case, not to delve into detailed evidence or discovery. It acknowledged that many requests for particulars have become excessive and sometimes abusive, a practice curtailed by the 2004 Act.

Requests falling within section 11 of the 2004 Act—such as details of other personal injury claims or injuries sustained before or after the incident—were recognized as legitimate and the Plaintiff was obliged to respond to those. Other particulars were disallowed for being unnecessary, premature, or irrelevant given the detailed pleadings already provided by the Plaintiff.

Overall, the Court sought to restore a balanced, principled approach to particulars, discouraging prolixity and irrelevant inquiries while ensuring fair notice of the case to be met.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISALLOWED the majority of the Defendants' requests for particulars, permitting only those falling within the scope of section 11 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 to be answered by the Plaintiff.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff is required to respond only to those particulars legitimately arising from the pleadings and the statutory provisions, thereby limiting the scope of discovery through particulars and reinforcing the procedural reforms introduced by the 2004 Act. No new precedent was established, but the decision underscores the Court's intention to curb excessive and irrelevant requests for particulars in personal injury litigation.