Tulley (A Minor) v Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1685 (QB) (18 July 2008)

Tulley (A Minor) v Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1685 (QB) (18 July 2008)

The court found that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, particularly the ambulance and hospital records, was more reliable than the recollections of witnesses after a long lapse of time. The evidence did not support the claimant's case that there was a negligent delay in the response to the cord prolapse. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1685
Parties
Claimant: Jack Tulley (a minor by his Mother and Litigation Friend, Gillian Jones); First Defendant: Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust; Second Defendant: Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Clinical Negligence / Liability and Causation Trial (quantum Split)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Causation in Medical Negligence, Obstetric Emergencies, Delay in Medical Response, Standard of Care
Tort Law Medical Negligence Clinical Negligence Causation in Medical Negligence Obstetric Emergencies Delay in Medical Response Standard of Care

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Tulley (a minor by his Mother and Litigation Friend, Gillian Jones)

Claimant

Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust

First Defendant

Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Clinical Negligence / Liability and Causation Trial (quantum Split)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was negligent delay in the response to a cord prolapse resulting in injury to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether any such delay caused or materially contributed to the claimant's cerebral palsy

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, particularly the ambulance and hospital records, was more reliable than the recollections of witnesses after a long lapse of time. The evidence did not support the claimant's case that there was a negligent delay in the response to the cord prolapse. The timings established by the records showed prompt action by the defendants, and there was no breach of duty or causative delay established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed