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; this breach caused the claimant to suffer avoidable deterioration in vision and the need for corneal transplants, which would probably have been avoided with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2525
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 resolved in claimant's favour.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Standard of Care, Optometry Negligence, Damages
Tort Law Medical Negligence Breach of Duty Causation Standard of Care Optometry Negligence Damages

Source-derived case record

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; this breach caused the claimant to suffer avoidable deterioration in vision and the need for corneal transplants, which would probably have been avoided with timely referral and treatment.

Court Disposition

Findings for the claimant on breach of duty and causation; preliminary issues resolved in claimant's favour.

Orders

  • Second defendant should have referred the claimant immediately to hospital in September 2012.
  • Had referral occurred, claimant would probably have avoided corneal transplant and severity of current symptoms.