The Supreme Court has ruled that, in pursuing personal injuries cases, a plaintiff must allow his doctor discuss his injuries with the doctor for the defendants, usually an insurance company.
The case concerned Mr Michael McGrory, who took an action against the ESB for an injury to his head from an object which fell from a rope while he was working there.
In the course of the case, the ESB solicitors wrote to Mr McGrory's solicitors, asking him to undergo a medical examination by a neurosurgeon, Mr Christopher Pidgeon.
They also asked for the name and address of his surgeon, so that Mr Pidgeon could consult with him.
Mr McGrory agreed to have the examination, but refused permission for his doctor to talk to the ESB's specialist. He also refused to make his medical records available.
The defendant's solicitor then sought a stay on the proceedings until the plaintiff consented to allowing his medical advisers consult with the defendant's medical advisers.
In support of this, the defendant's solicitor produced a document prepared by the Litigation Committee of the Law Society. This stated that it was custom and practice in personal injuries cases for the plaintiff's doctor to be present while an examination by the defendant's doctor was taking place.
It was also custom and practice that they communicated by telephone, and that the plaintiff's doctor provided his notes to the doctor for the defendant.
Both sides agreed that, while this was the custom and practice, there were no rules of court compelling personal injuries cases to be conducted in this way.
The High Court refused to stay the proceedings, and the defendant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. In its reserved judgment, delivered yesterday by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, the court said: "The plaintiff who sues for damages for personal injuries by implication necessarily waives the right of privacy which he would otherwise enjoy in relation to his medical condition.
"The law must be in a position to ensure that he does not unfairly and unreasonably impede the defendant in the preparation of his defence by refusing to consent to a medical examination. Similarly, the court must be able to ensure that the defendant has access to any relevant medical records."