header-logo header-logo

14 February 2025 / Charles Davey
Issue: 8104 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Privacy , Disclosure , Health
printer mail-detail

Off the record

208117
Solicitors & courts are often indifferent to claimants’ rights to confidentiality, writes Charles Davey, setting out a blueprint for change to the disclosure rules
  • Trial bundles often include disclosure of the entirety of personal injury claimants’ medical records. In modest claims, this is unnecessary and inappropriate.
  • These records often relate to personal, sensitive and irrelevant details, and disclosure could be in breach of claimants’ right to privacy.
  • This article proposes that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee should provide a structure for disclosure in these claims.

In modest personal injury claims, routine, unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure of the entirety of claimants’ medical records is not acceptable. This is in clear violation of a solicitor’s duty of confidentiality and a potential breach of claimants’ rights under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not to mention possible breaches of data protection legislation. To make matters worse, these records are frequently included in trial bundles.

In a claim for damages for life-changing injuries, with a substantial claim for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll