Hodgson v Hammond (Re Breach of Duty) [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB) (20 May 2025)

Hodgson v Hammond (Re Breach of Duty) [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB) (20 May 2025)

Both Dr Hammond and Dr Dieleman breached their duty of care. Dr Hammond failed to perform a pelvic examination or arrange further investigation when PID was a working diagnosis, despite ongoing symptoms and risk factors. Dr Dieleman failed to arrange an urgent pelvic examination after the telephone consultation, despite persistent symptoms and the risk of PID. Their actions were not supported by a logical or defensible body of medical opinion and fell below the standard required.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1261 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Ms Philipa Hodgson; First Defendant: Dr Daniel Hammond; Second Defendant: Dr Andre Dieleman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / Judgment on Breach of Duty After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on breach of duty
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Standard of Care, Clinical Negligence, Bolam Test, Bolitho Exception, Expert Evidence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Breach of Duty Standard of Care Clinical Negligence Bolam Test Bolitho Exception Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Philipa Hodgson

Claimant

Dr Daniel Hammond

First Defendant

Dr Andre Dieleman

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / Judgment on Breach of Duty After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Hammond breached his duty by failing to perform a pelvic examination or arrange further investigation on 30 August 2016
  2. 2 Whether Dr Dieleman breached his duty by failing to arrange urgent pelvic examination after the telephone consultation on 5 September 2016

Ratio Decidendi

Both Dr Hammond and Dr Dieleman breached their duty of care. Dr Hammond failed to perform a pelvic examination or arrange further investigation when PID was a working diagnosis, despite ongoing symptoms and risk factors. Dr Dieleman failed to arrange an urgent pelvic examination after the telephone consultation, despite persistent symptoms and the risk of PID. Their actions were not supported by a logical or defensible body of medical opinion and fell below the standard required.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on breach of duty

Orders

  • Declaration that both defendants breached their duty of care to the claimant
  • Quantum to be determined at a later hearing