TGC Clinical Negligence Newsletter – Second Issue
16th November 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of the TGC Clinical Negligence Newsletter.
To help you navigate this edition, here is an overview of what you can expect: –
Procedure, Limitation & Expert Evidence
• To kick us off on recent procedural developments, Marcus Grant considers Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Metcalf [2021] EWHC 611 QB in which the Court handed down a six-month prison sentence against a claimant as punishment for contempt of court for signing statements of truth on court documents containing facts that she knew to be untrue.
• Ellen Robertson looks at Wilkins v University Hospital North Midlands NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 2164 (QB), which considers the old chestnuts of ‘date of knowledge’ for the purposes of limitation and the ‘balancing exercise’ undertaken by the Court when considering whether to utilise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980
• James Arney Q.C. considers PAL v Davidson [2021] EWHC 1108 (QB), an application by a 13-year-old claimant who had suffered catastrophic injuries for an interim payment of £2 million to enable a suitable property to be purchased for her long-term accommodation needs.
Fourthly – and this is itself a new development for the TGC Clinical Negligence Newsletter – we will take you through a quick-fire review of four key cases in the field.
Breach of Duty & Causation
• Turning to questions of liability, James Laughland first considers the Supreme Court’s much awaited judgment in Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21, in which the centrality of the ‘scope of duty’ principle was affirmed as a determinative factor in medical advice cases.
• I (Lionel Stride) then examine the battery of post-Montgomery case law concerning patients’ informed consent to treatment.
• Following on from the above, Robert Riddell analyses Negus (1) Bambridge (2) v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 643 (QB), which concerns the extent to which a doctor is under a duty to warn a patient before surgery of the material risk which may arise from intra-operative technical decisions.
• Nicholas Dobbs examines Sheard v Cao Tri Do [2021] EWHC 2166 (QB), which provides an instructive example of the difficulties in clinical negligence claims when resolving conflicts between witness evidence and contemporaneous medical notes.
• James Laughland analyses Davies v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 169 (QB) in which the Court considered whether the making of a material contribution to harm was sufficient to establish liability in a clinical negligence claim.
• Rochelle Powell considers Jarman v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 323(QB), which provides an interesting exposition of the Bolam test in the context of an alleged failure to refer the claimant for an emergency MRI.
• Anthony Johnson considers Brint v. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 in which the Judge’s consideration of the claimant’s lack of credibility as a witness did not equate to a finding of fundamental dishonesty for the purposes of CPR 44.16.
• James Arney Q.C. analyses XM v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 3102 (QB) in which the Court considered the standard of care to be expected from ‘health visitors’; the judgment is a practical application of the principles established in Wilsher and Darnley.
• I (Lionel Stride) then set out a quick-fire summary of some of the other interesting recent clinical negligence cases that did not (quite) make the cut for articles.
Calculation of Damages
• Turning to questions of quantum, Anthon Johnson analyses Reaney v. University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 1119, which is significant for two reasons: (i) the Court provided guidance on the applicability of the test of causation in a case where a non-negligent injury had been exacerbated by the Defendant’s clinical negligence; and (ii) the Master of the Rolls commented obiter on the applicability of the ‘material contribution’ test in claims of that nature.
• Blowing the final whistle on this edition, James Yapp then considers Owen v Swansea City AFC [2021] EWHC 1539 (QB), in which the Court addressed the question of how to calculate the likely career earnings of a young professional footballer.
We very much hope you enjoy this publication, and welcome any feedback.