Macaulay v Karim & Anor [2017] EWHC 1795 (QB) (14 July 2017)

Macaulay v Karim & Anor [2017] EWHC 1795 (QB) (14 July 2017)

The court found that the standard of care provided by both Dr Karim and the hospital fell below that required in the circumstances. The failure to carry out appropriate investigations and to appreciate the seriousness of the claimant's condition constituted breaches of duty. On the balance of probabilities, earlier intervention would have prevented or reduced the extent of the claimant's injuries. Accordingly, both defendants were liable for clinical negligence.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1795
Parties
Claimant: Ibiyinka Macaulay; 1st Defendant: Dr Abdul Karim; 2nd Defendant: Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Standard of Care, Causation, Damages, Expert Evidence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Clinical Negligence Standard of Care Causation Damages 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibiyinka Macaulay

Claimant

Dr Abdul Karim

1st Defendant

Croydon Health Services NHS Trust

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Abdul Karim and/or Croydon Health Services NHS Trust were negligent in failing to diagnose and treat the claimant's underlying condition in a timely manner
  2. 2 Whether earlier intervention would have prevented or reduced the claimant's injuries
  3. 3 Whether the standard of care provided met the legal and professional requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the standard of care provided by both Dr Karim and the hospital fell below that required in the circumstances. The failure to carry out appropriate investigations and to appreciate the seriousness of the claimant's condition constituted breaches of duty. On the balance of probabilities, earlier intervention would have prevented or reduced the extent of the claimant's injuries. Accordingly, both defendants were liable for clinical negligence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against both defendants for clinical negligence
  • Assessment of damages to be determined in a subsequent hearing