Biggadike v El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688 (KB) (02 July 2024)

Biggadike v El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688 (KB) (02 July 2024)

The first defendant breached her duty by failing to offer and arrange a trial of supervised pelvic floor exercises and by failing to arrange urodynamic studies before surgery, contrary to NICE Guideline CG 171 and accepted professional practice. The first defendant also failed to obtain Montgomery-compliant consent for the TVT-A tape implantation. The second defendant's mesh excision was not negligent, but the colposuspension procedure was not clinically justified and was performed without informed consent. The second defendant's additions to medical records were deceptive in presentation but not proven to be substantively false. Causation was established against the first defendant for...

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1688 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Deborah Biggadike; First Defendant: Kamilia El Farra; Second Defendant: Sohier El-Neil
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant; claim against the second defendant dismissed except for findings on record-keeping.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Informed Consent, Causation, Apportionment of Liability, Medical Record Keeping
Medical Negligence Tort Law Breach of Duty Informed Consent Causation Apportionment of Liability Medical Record Keeping

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Biggadike

Claimant

Kamilia El Farra

First Defendant

Sohier El-Neil

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant breached her duty by failing to offer conservative treatment (pelvic floor exercises) and/or urodynamic studies before surgery
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant failed to obtain informed consent for TVT-A tape implantation and posterior prolapse repair
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant's mesh excision and colposuspension procedures were clinically justified and/or performed without informed consent

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant breached her duty by failing to offer and arrange a trial of supervised pelvic floor exercises and by failing to arrange urodynamic studies before surgery, contrary to NICE Guideline CG 171 and accepted professional practice. The first defendant also failed to obtain Montgomery-compliant consent for the TVT-A tape implantation. The second defendant's mesh excision was not negligent, but the colposuspension procedure was not clinically justified and was performed without informed consent. The second defendant's additions to medical records were deceptive in presentation but not proven to be substantively false. Causation was established against the first defendant for...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant; claim against the second defendant dismissed except for findings on record-keeping.

Orders

  • First defendant to pay agreed damages of £500,000 to the claimant.
  • First defendant to pay costs of the action.