Roger Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors

Roger Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors

The surgery performed was so substandard as to be valueless, entitling the claimant to recover the cost of the surgery and associated travel as wasted expenditure, in addition to damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, past care, and travel expenses. The Judicial College Guidelines bracket for non-facial scarring does not reflect the scale of injury and suffering. A deduction is made for gratuitous care. The total agreed sum is £69,348, subject to further determination on the limitation of indemnity issue.

Parties
Claimant: Roger Mann (Executor of the Estate of Denise Mann deceased); First Defendant: Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska S. A; Second Defendant: Noa Clinic – Uslugi Medyczne Sp. z. o. o.; Third Defendant: Adam Kalecinski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Assessment of Damages / Judgment After Default Judgment and Assessment of Damages Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant for agreed sum of £69,348, with further directions to be made on limitation of indemnity issue.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Personal Injury, Jurisdiction, Limitation of Indemnity
Tort Contract Medical Negligence Assessment of Damages Breach of Contract Negligence Personal Injury Jurisdiction +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Mann (Executor of the Estate of Denise Mann deceased)

Claimant

Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska S. A

First Defendant

Noa Clinic – Uslugi Medyczne Sp. z. o. o.

Second Defendant

Adam Kalecinski

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Assessment of Damages / Judgment After Default Judgment and Assessment of Damages Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity resulting from negligent cosmetic surgery
  2. 2 Whether the claimant can recover the cost of the original surgery and associated travel as wasted expenditure
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum for past care, assistance, and travel expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The surgery performed was so substandard as to be valueless, entitling the claimant to recover the cost of the surgery and associated travel as wasted expenditure, in addition to damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, past care, and travel expenses. The Judicial College Guidelines bracket for non-facial scarring does not reflect the scale of injury and suffering. A deduction is made for gratuitous care. The total agreed sum is £69,348, subject to further determination on the limitation of indemnity issue.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant for agreed sum of £69,348, with further directions to be made on limitation of indemnity issue.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded £69,348 inclusive of damages and interest.
  • Parties to submit draft order for approval within 14 days.