|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Connah v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 1616 (02 November 2006)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1616
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM TORQUAY & NEWTON ABBOTT COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE OVEREND)
Royal Courts of Justice
B e f o r e :
SIR ANDREW MORRITT
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
LORD JUSTICE DYSON
|PLYMOUTH HOSPITALS NHS TRUST||Respondent/Appellant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS SARAH VAUGHN JONES (instructed by Bevan Brittan appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
The procedural history
Paragraph 6 of the application was in these terms:
"Mr Lindsay (partner) Bevan Ashford Bristol lied and misled a judge on the 28/3/2002. I require permission to take proceedings against him or have him referred to the Attorney -General..."
"the CT scans are all of the same patient and, as these are all compatible with the dental chart of Mrs Connah, they must all have been taken of [her]."
Mr O'Brien, a local dental practitioner, had been instructed by the appellant (inaudible). He had originally supported the contention that the CT scan did not relate to Mrs Connah but in the light of the further material Mr O'Brien agreed that the light must have been taken of Mrs Connah." As the judge recorded, the appellant was unable to accept the position. He alleged that his expert had been intimidated by Mr Whaites and Dr Grant, another expert instructed by the respondent. The judge heard evidence from Dr Grant and Mr Whaites, but not the evidence of Mr O'Brien. He rejected the allegations of intimidation and found in favour of the respondent on the preliminary issue.
"It is ordered that you be restrained from issuing claims or making applications in any court specified below concerning any matter involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made without first obtaining the permission of HHJ Sean Overend or if unavailable the deputy Designated Civil Judge for Devon and Cornwall."
The specified courts were the High Court and Devon and Cornwall County Courts. The order continued:
"You having been made the subject of a Bhamjee order on 31/10/03, which was varied by adding a further order dated 18th November 2003 requiring you to desist from writing to the Torquay and Newton Abbott County Court or to the West Group Manager's Office or to any members of their staff, and you having breached the said orders by writing letters to the Torquay County Court on 20th and 28th October 2005 and you now persisting in writing further letters and making further telephone calls to the Area Directors office involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to the proceeding in TQ 100894 ORDER.
It is ordered that you be restrained from writing to, telephoning or otherwise communicating with the Area Director's office of the Devon and Cornwall Area of HM Courts Service or any of their members of staff or with the Torquay and Newton Abbot Court or any members of their staff without first obtaining similar permission of HHJ Judge Sean Overend or the deputy Designated Civil Judge for the Devon and Cornwall.
This order will remain in effect until 19 January 2007."
This order was made by the judge on his own initiative. It seems that he made the order on the papers. A copy was sent by second -class post to the appellant without even a covering letter. Neither he nor the respondent had been given notice by the court that such an order would or might be made. Miss Vaughn -Jones, who appears for the respondent before this court, has adopted a neutral stance in relation to the validity of this order.
(Appeal allowed; no order as to costs, save assessment of the appellant's costs).