Addendum re Date of Birth

­ CLINICALNEGLIGENCE (in part)

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUSTICE CLAIM NO. HQ11X01668

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

between:-

ROBIN PHILIP CLARKE

Claimant

and

THE DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH

/ THE CHIEF DENTALOFFICER

Defendant

ADDENDUM TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
IN RESPECT OF DATE OF BIRTH

The Claimant adds the following inresponse to the Defendant’s objection that the Claimant’s date of birth was notstated in the Particulars, in breach of PD 16 4.1.

Compliancewith the spirit of this PD

1. A famous person, whose name is familiarto many, has been reported to have expressed the notion that “The Sabbath Rulewas made for mankind, not mankind for the Sabbath Rule”. And could it be otherwise?

2. The “age” of the Claimant can be mostfairly stated as that he has not yet finished studying for his A-levels.

3. The Claimant has had the best severaldecades of his life involuntarily stolen from him by this matter. He has near to absolutely nothing in commonwith those who are “the same age as” himself. The preoccupation of many with crude stereotypical assumptions about aperson’s “age”, and supposedly self-evidently corresponding abundance of pastyears of opportunity, are outstandingly offensive to him. It is obnoxious enough that he has had allthose best years stolen from him, without additionally having the matter of hissupposed “age” needlessly rubbed in his nose. And it is obvious that wherever a statement of “date of birth” goes, animplicit statement of “age” goes relentlessly with it.

4. A high proportion of people casuallyabuse their gift of youth, by indulgences in harmful habits such as smoking,drinking, junk foods, excessive sunlight, and lack of exercising. By contrast the Claimant has always strivento avoid these harms and instead conscientiously attended to healthful habitssuch as careful nutrition and avoidance of harms (except, long unknowingly,ironically, dental mercury).

5. The only proper real or potentialrelevance of the Claimant’s “date of birth” within the Particulars documentwould be for determining the following:

a) theClaimant’s identity;

b) the ageat which an injury started;

c) therelative ages at which any alleged causal factors were operative;

d) theapproximate duration of the injury.

Andall of these determinations are already effectively fulfilled by other moreefficient means in the Particulars, making an inclusion of a date of birthsuperfluous.

Impossibility of compliance with this PD

6. In anycase, the Claimant does not know his date of birth anyway. He wasn’t keeping a diary at the time of hisbirth and has never seen a birth certificate of himself. Given some tendency of parents tomisrepresent their childrens’ provenances and ages he prefers to keep an openmind and to not pretend to know something he doesn’t. And one would hope that justice in the UK is not needlesslyconfined to only those who are confident they know their date of birth.

Compliance with the letter of this PD

7. Meanwhile,in case there could be some obscure problem with the principles indicated inthe preceding paragraphs, the continuation of this Paragraph 7 does in any caseinclude the date most commonly asserted as being the Claimant’s date ofbirth. And thereby is fully fulfilledthe letter of the PD 16 4.1(1) specification that the Particulars “must includethe Claimant’s date of birth”.

##/##/1950;##/##/1951; ##/##/1952; (etc redacted)##/##/1979.

STATEMENTOF TRUTH

I believe thatthe facts stated in this Addendum are true.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Signed,

Robin PhilipClarke

Claimant, Dated