Over the years, I have determined that there is no amount of disclosure that is too great from the neurological perspective. Neurologists should acquire every piece of information. My Peer Supervision Group is about to publish a document looking at the validity of symptoms and reflecting on a check-list of data and documents that ought to be available in order to carry out a full assessment. This will be published on the website once it is available.


Having been instructed from Eire on several occasions, I am quite impressed with their system. Every piece of paper and instruction is disclosable. Nothing factual or opinion driven can be hidden. Nothing it would appear is privileged and this can only be for the good.


I think one of the areas where Lord Woolff with his reforms could have made a great difference is in the rules of disclosure and that everything is disclosable without privilege including discussions, changes in reports and modifications based on new evidence or new opinion. That would have allowed the Courts to see the evolution of opinion. If everything is above board and honourable, then there would be nothing to fear either by that increased disclosure. If for instance a discussion included negative information for a Claimant that was then rejected, then surely that should be available to the Court so that the Court understands how the opinion has been generated. To me, it seems so obvious and yet that is certainly not the case with the legal process.