Jarrett _Marcia_ v South East Regional Health Authority et al.pdf

absence of any affidavit from Dr Wan explaining this gap, the appellantsubmits that there has clearly been a breach of the order for specificdisclosure and that she was as a result entitled to an order striking out thestatement of defence, pursuant to rule 28.14 (2) of the Civil ProcedureRules 2002 (“the CPR”).[14] The respondents for their part submit that the appellant’s pleadedclaim “is restricted to allegations of negligence about the treatment andcare of [the deceased] under the aegis of the Crown, not when heconsulted Dr Wan in his private practice.” Their further submission is thatthe Attorney General’s response is to the claim as it relates to Dr Wan in hiscapacity as agent or servant of the Crown and that the Attorney Generalno control “of any document used or generated by Dr Wan in his privatepractice and therefore cannot disclose same”. The respondents contendthat because the appellant’s allegations of negligence centre around theperiod March 1999 to March 2000, “it cannot be said that any documentgenerated by or in Dr Wan’s possession in respect of [the deceased] thatexisted before March 1999, can be said to adversely affect theDefendant’s case or tends to support the Claimant’s case”, or that anysuch document would be directly relevant to matters in issue in theproceedings.