Bond v Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2525 (QB) (28 May 2021)

Bond v Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2525 (QB) (28 May 2021)

The second defendant breached the duty of care by failing to investigate or refer the claimant after detecting significant astigmatic change in September 2012. On the balance of probabilities, had a referral been made, the claimant would have received cross-linking treatment earlier, likely avoiding the need for corneal transplants and the severity of current visual symptoms.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2525 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Lewis Bond; First Defendant: Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd; Second Defendant: Mahmood Moustafa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Findings for the claimant on breach of duty and causation preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Standard of Care, Medical Referral, Ophthalmology Negligence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Breach of Duty Causation Standard of Care Medical Referral Ophthalmology Negligence

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Lewis Bond

Claimant

Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd

First Defendant

Mahmood Moustafa

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant breached the duty of care owed to the claimant at the September 2012 appointment
  2. 2 Whether additional checks, recall, or referral should have been made by the second defendant
  3. 3 Whether any breach of duty caused a significant difference in the claimant's current condition and prognosis

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant breached the duty of care by failing to investigate or refer the claimant after detecting significant astigmatic change in September 2012. On the balance of probabilities, had a referral been made, the claimant would have received cross-linking treatment earlier, likely avoiding the need for corneal transplants and the severity of current visual symptoms.

Court Disposition

Findings for the claimant on breach of duty and causation preliminary issues.

Orders

  • The second defendant should have referred the claimant immediately in September 2012.
  • The claimant would have avoided the severity of current visual symptoms and likely avoided corneal transplant surgery if referred and treated earlier.