RSA's push for sensitive safeguarding records hit a wall, but the insurer walked away with two disclosure wins in a multi-million pound PI fight.
In a ruling handed down on April 28, 2026, HHJ Emma Kelly, sitting in the High Court in Birmingham, delivered a split decision on three applications brought by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited and the personal representatives of deceased motorist Mr John Middleham.
The underlying claim traces back to April 6, 2010, when a nine-year-old girl was struck by Middleham's vehicle while crossing a road in Birmingham. Liability was agreed at 50/50, but the real fight is over causation - and it is a significant one. The claimant says the accident left her with serious physical injuries, significant psychiatric conditions, and an inability to live independently. She puts the claim in the multi-million pound range.
RSA sees it differently. The insurer's position is that the accident's role in the claimant's condition - particularly her psycho-behavioural syndrome - is much more minor, and that non-accident-related factors are likely responsible.
To test that theory, the insurer went after records held by three non-parties: an NHS trust, the Home Office, and a children's trust.
The first target was a partially redacted safeguarding letter sitting in the claimant's GP records. The letter documented allegations of physical aggression, emotional abuse, sexual assault, and multiple overdoses - but heavy redactions hid who it was about. Then came the hearing twist: the claimant's 18-year-old sister attended and identified herself as the subject. She objected to her records being released.
The judge found the documents were relevant but ruled that disclosure was not necessary now that the sister's identity was known. More significantly, even if that bar had been cleared, the court said it would have refused anyway - holding that the privacy rights of a vulnerable 18-year-old non-party outweighed the insurer's need for the material. The judge also noted the public interest in maintaining confidence in clinician-patient confidentiality.
Safeguarding records relating to the claimant herself were ordered disclosed without opposition.
RSA fared better on the remaining two applications. The court ordered disclosure of immigration records from the Home Office relating to the claimant's mother, who had been an "overstayer" at the time of the accident. Experts had identified her risk of removal from the country as a potential stressor that could be affecting the claimant's psychiatric presentation. The court agreed this was relevant and found that relying on cross-examination at trial was not a realistic alternative given the complexity of the immigration history and the parents' lack of independence as witnesses.
Social services records covering 2009 to 2024 were also ordered released. Both sets of documents are subject to protective redactions - names and identifying details of third parties must be removed, but the underlying facts must stay visible.
For insurers defending complex injury claims, the takeaway is measured. Privacy rights can shut the door even when expert evidence strongly supports the request. But where other ways of getting the evidence are impractical and the documents go to the heart of causation, courts are willing to craft workable disclosure orders that balance competing interests.
