Reynard v Exquisite Quisine Limited t/a Latours Cuisine -
Court of Session 9 November 2005
Mrs. Reynard, formerly a midwife by profession, acquired
salmonella poisoning after eating a meal at a Chinese restaurant.
The Restaurant admitted liability for the salmonella infection,
which in turn caused Mrs. Reynard to develop reactive arthritis.
The Restaurant disputed both the extent to which Mrs. Reynard had
been affected by the reactive arthritis and the value of her
claim.
Lord Hodge preferred Mrs. Reynard's expert evidence that she
continued to suffer from the reactive arthritis which was
responsible for her ongoing disability, rather than her other
health problems. He found that her ruptured Achilles tendons which
occurred 18 months after the poisoning were, on a balance of
probabilities, materially contributed to by the reactive arthritis.
He was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that Mrs.
Reynard suffered from a psychological condition unrelated to the
reactive arthritis, despite a number of serious family problems and
health problems, both physical and psychological prior to the
salmonella poisoning. He further found that her pre-incident weight
and blood pressure problems would not have compromised her career
and that her weight problem had been materially exacerbated by the
reactive arthritis, which in turn was causally linked to both the
par aesthesia in her thigh and bilateral dry eye.
Lord Hodge awarded £1.2 million in damages of which £85,000
related to pain and suffering, £385,380 to future wage loss,
£218,000 to future care and £146,250 to additional care on
deterioration of her health.
Lord Hodge clearly preferred Mrs. Reynard's medical evidence and
in particular the evidence of two of her treating doctors who had
cared for her over a period of time. He rejected a motion by the
defence to allow a surveillance video of Mrs. Reynard which had
been obtained between the initial hearing and continued hearing,
and a report by a histopathologist, to be admitted as evidence, on
the basis that it would not be fair or in the interests of justice.
He was of the view that no acceptable reason had been given as to
why this evidence came so late in the day and the delay and
inconvenience which would be caused in admitting it were not
justifiable.
It is therefore unknown whether the admission of this evidence
would have had any bearing on the damages awarded. The case does
however serve as a reminder that all evidence parties intend to
rely upon should be obtained and lodged on time or parties run the
risk of not being able to rely on the evidence at all.