Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2020] EWHC 3029 (QB) (11 November 2020)

Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2020] EWHC 3029 (QB) (11 November 2020)

Both the MoD and the Trust, through their doctors, breached their duty of care by failing to advise Mr Constance of the surgical option for his conductive hearing loss. This failure led to his unnecessary medical discharge and loss of career progression. The claimant is entitled to damages to place him in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3029
Parties
Claimant: Mr Warren Constance; First Defendant: Ministry of Defence; Second Defendant: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant on liability and causation.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Causation, Damages, Duty of Care, Informed Consent, Misdiagnosis, Military Discharge
Tort Law Medical Negligence Military Law Clinical Negligence Vicarious Liability Causation Damages Duty of Care +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Warren Constance

Claimant

Ministry of Defence

First Defendant

Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to advise the claimant of surgical options for his hearing loss
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffered loss as a result of the breaches
  3. 3 What damages flow from the breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Both the MoD and the Trust, through their doctors, breached their duty of care by failing to advise Mr Constance of the surgical option for his conductive hearing loss. This failure led to his unnecessary medical discharge and loss of career progression. The claimant is entitled to damages to place him in the position he would have been in had he been properly advised and treated.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant on liability and causation.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed in accordance with the judgment.
  • Defendants found vicariously liable for negligent acts of their doctors.