Deborah Biggadike v Kamilia El Farra & Anor

Deborah Biggadike v Kamilia El Farra & Anor

The first defendant did not breach her duty of care: pelvic floor exercises were offered, the claimant chose surgery, and the failure to arrange urodynamic studies was not a breach as a responsible body of clinicians would not have performed them in these circumstances. Informed consent was properly obtained. The second defendant was not in breach for mesh excision, as it was a reasonable option given the claimant's symptoms and wishes. However, the second defendant breached her duty by performing colposuspension without clinical justification and without obtaining informed consent, as the claimant was asymptomatic and urodynamics were normal. The claimant would not have consented to...

Parties
Claimant: Deborah Biggadike; First Defendant: Kamilia El Farra; Second Defendant: Sohier El-Neil
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against first defendant dismissed; judgment for claimant against second defendant for damages attributable to unnecessary colposuspension.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Informed Consent, Causation, Damages, Apportionment of Liability
Medical Law Tort Law Clinical Negligence Informed Consent Causation Damages Apportionment of Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Biggadike

Claimant

Kamilia El Farra

First Defendant

Sohier El-Neil

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant breached her duty of care by failing to offer and arrange conservative treatment (pelvic floor exercises) and urodynamic studies before surgery; whether the first defendant failed to obtain informed consent; whether the second defendant breached her duty by performing mesh excision and colposuspension without clinical justification; whether the second defendant failed to obtain informed consent for colposuspension; causation and quantum of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant did not breach her duty of care: pelvic floor exercises were offered, the claimant chose surgery, and the failure to arrange urodynamic studies was not a breach as a responsible body of clinicians would not have performed them in these circumstances. Informed consent was properly obtained. The second defendant was not in breach for mesh excision, as it was a reasonable option given the claimant's symptoms and wishes. However, the second defendant breached her duty by performing colposuspension without clinical justification and without obtaining informed consent, as the claimant was asymptomatic and urodynamics were normal. The claimant would not have consented to...

Court Disposition

Claim against first defendant dismissed; judgment for claimant against second defendant for damages attributable to unnecessary colposuspension.

Orders

  • Claim against first defendant dismissed.
  • Judgment for claimant against second defendant in the sum of £195,887.66 plus interest to be calculated.