Inspection

Inspection

'Inspection' is the stage in the disclosure process during which the parties physically see the documents that have been:

•
disclosed by the other parties to the litigation (and which they have not objected to your inspecting)
•
referred to in a party's statement of case, witness statements, witness summaries and affidavits—for further guidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure—inspection—Inspection of documents referred to in statements of case, witness statements
•
ordered to be specifically disclosed and/or inspected under CPR 31.12—for further information, see: Specific disclosure and specific inspection—overview

As such, this is an important stage in the litigation and one which should be conducted thoroughly and carefully. For general guidance on inspection, see Practice Note: Disclosure: inspection, which provides guidance on:

•
documents that can be inspected
•
how to make a written request for inspection under CPR 31.15(a)
•
the circumstances in which it may not be possible to inspect disclosed documents under CPR 31.3 and CPR 31.19
•
how to make an application for specific inspection under CPR 31.12
•
how inspection takes place under CPR 31.15 (considering, among other things, inspection of original documents, copy documents and electronic documents)

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—4 April 2025

Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) meeting of 4 April 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including open justice and access to court documents, the replacement of CPR PD 51O (e-working pilot), amendments to CPR 82 concerning closed material procedures, updates from the Lacuna Sub-Committee on Beddoe applications, judicial review reforms for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the future of paper determination in small claims.

Minutes of the OPR Committee meeting—14 April 2025

The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 14 April 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building and via video conference) cover a number of issues including Ministry of Justice policy updates, digital tools for Private Family Law, progress on the statutory instrument, the Inclusion Framework, the Pre-Action Model and updates from sub-committees including the Property and Possession Working Group.

Materiality is still material (Butler v Ward)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The court refused a summary judgment application by the defendant, which sought judgment on the basis that a claim for breach of duty to warn a clinical patient of risks could be decided in reference to a reasonable body of medical opinion without a need to consider evidence from (inter alia) the claimant. The court held that evidence from the claimant was necessary to determine whether the risk in question was material, and that the rule in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in respect of consent to medical risks had not been altered by the judgment in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board. In particular, the Bolam test did not apply to the duty to warn a patient of material risks, even if it would apply to the duty to advise a patient as to alternative procedures. The court also struck out a sections of a schedule of loss which claimed substantial sums, in the region of £2.5m for loss of earnings, but which disclosed no basis for claiming damages in that amount. Written by Thomas Mallon, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

Exclusive jurisdiction clause in settlement agreement takes precedence over prior arbitration clause, rules English Court (Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA)

Arbitration analysis: The High Court dismissed an application to stay court proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court in a later settlement agreement superseded earlier arbitration clauses in prior contracts. This decision confirms that when parties conclusively settle prior disputes in a new agreement, jurisdiction clauses in the settlement agreement can displace earlier dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly if the new clause is broadly framed. Litigation and arbitration practitioners alike should carefully consider the implications of dispute resolution clauses in settlement agreements, especially where prior contracts contain arbitration clauses. Written by Min Li, Partner at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP and Patrick Chong, associate at Reed Smtih Richards Butler LLP.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News