KA & Anor v East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 647 (12 April 2016)

KA & Anor v East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 647 (12 April 2016)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to admit the un-redacted expert evidence and to find negligence based on the objective standard established by the majority and reasonable body of medical opinion. The judge properly considered the dilemma faced by the technicians and applied the Bolam test. There was no important point of principle or compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 647
Parties
Claimant/respondent: KA; Claimant/respondent: Another; Defendant/applicant: East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Standard of Care in Emergency Medicine, Case Management Decisions, Second Appeals Under CPR 52.13
Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Standard of Care in Emergency Medicine Case Management Decisions Second Appeals Under CPR 52.13

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KA

Claimant/respondent

Another

Claimant/respondent

East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting un-redacted expert evidence of Dr Longstaff
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to properly address the 'horns of a dilemma' faced by emergency medical technicians under the Bolam test
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted for a second appeal under CPR 52.13

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to admit the un-redacted expert evidence and to find negligence based on the objective standard established by the majority and reasonable body of medical opinion. The judge properly considered the dilemma faced by the technicians and applied the Bolam test. There was no important point of principle or compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Decision of Tomlinson LJ (single judge) confirmed