Rall v Hume

The appeal was allowed to a limited extent by procedural directions concerning video evidence. The trial date was preserved. The claimant and her medical experts were to view copies of the videos before trial. The defendant was permitted to cross-examine on their content, but only by reference to footage selected by the defendant and limited to 20 minutes. Footage of the claimant inside her home was excluded.

This was an appeal from Basingstoke County Court, sitting at Aldershot and Fareham, before HHJ Anthony Thompson QC. The supplied judgment records an appeal concerning the arrangements for viewing and using video evidence before trial. The Court of Appeal addressed the extent to which the videos should be made available to the claimant, her medical experts and the defendant for cross-examination.

1. Permission to appeal was granted.
2. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The trial date was to stand.
3. Copies of the videos were to be viewed by the claimant and her medical experts before trial.
4. The defendant was given leave to cross-examine on the content of the videos, using footage selected by the defendant and totalling no more than 20 minutes' running time. The selected footage was not to include footage of the claimant within her own home and was to be identified and communicated to the claimant's solicitors by 1pm on 19 January 2001.
5. The appellant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs in the sum of £2,793.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from Basingstoke County Court, sitting at Aldershot and Fareham, allowed to a limited extent. The trial date was preserved and directions were made concerning the videos.