A statutory third party insurer sought leave to bring a motion after the action had been set down for trial in order to compel the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric defence medical examination.
The insurer argued that it had only recently become aware of the psychiatric component of the claim and that, as a statutory third party with separate interests from the defendant insurer, it was entitled to its own medical examination.
The court held that there had been no unexpected or substantial change in circumstances justifying leave after the matter was set down for trial.
The court also found that the insurer’s interests were effectively the same as the defendant insurer’s and that a psychiatric defence examination had already been obtained.
The motion was therefore dismissed.
