Beech v Timney & Anor

Beech v Timney & Anor

On the balance of probabilities, Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant’s blood pressure accurately on 23 March 2003. There was no breach of duty in this regard, and even if there had been, the evidence did not establish that treatment would have prevented the stroke. The claim fails on both breach and causation.

Parties
Claimant: Joseph Michael Beech (by his Litigation Friend Joanne Mounsey); 1st Defendant: Dr A P Timney; 2nd Defendant: Mr A W Paterson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Standard of Care, Damages
Tort Law Medical Negligence Breach of Duty Causation Standard of Care Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Michael Beech (by his Litigation Friend Joanne Mounsey)

Claimant

Dr A P Timney

1st Defendant

Mr A W Paterson

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant’s blood pressure with reasonable care on 23 March 2003
  2. 2 Whether, if not, appropriate treatment would have prevented the stroke
  3. 3 Whether the claimant’s stroke was caused by the negligence of the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant’s blood pressure accurately on 23 March 2003. There was no breach of duty in this regard, and even if there had been, the evidence did not establish that treatment would have prevented the stroke. The claim fails on both breach and causation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed