Oberholster v Little & Anor

Oberholster v Little & Anor

The judge was entitled, on a summary determination with the parties' consent, to find that the Eighth Defendant bore primary non-delegable responsibility for informed consent, that the claims against the Second and Eighth Defendants were inextricably linked, and that it was just and proportionate for the Eighth Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs. There was no error of principle or manifest injustice in the judge's exercise of discretion, and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/eighth Defendant: Doctor Andre Oberholster; First Respondent/claimant: Ms Jayne Little; Second Respondent/second Defendant: Optical Express Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs Determination) / Appeal From Costs Order After Settlement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs After Settlement, Summary Determination of Costs, Non Delegable Duty of Care, Informed Consent, Bullock and Sanderson Orders
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Costs After Settlement Summary Determination of Costs Non Delegable Duty of Care Informed Consent Bullock and Sanderson Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doctor Andre Oberholster

Appellant/eighth Defendant

Ms Jayne Little

First Respondent/claimant

Optical Express Limited

Second Respondent/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs Determination) / Appeal From Costs Order After Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ordering the Eighth Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs after settlement with the Second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the summary process for determining costs was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether a Bullock or Sanderson order should have been made

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled, on a summary determination with the parties' consent, to find that the Eighth Defendant bore primary non-delegable responsibility for informed consent, that the claims against the Second and Eighth Defendants were inextricably linked, and that it was just and proportionate for the Eighth Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs. There was no error of principle or manifest injustice in the judge's exercise of discretion, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Eighth Defendant to pay Claimant's reasonable costs of the action as between Claimant and Eighth Defendant