Kelly Chilton v Michael Payne

Kelly Chilton v Michael Payne

The High Court held that Mr Payne did not owe a duty to record the date of next review on the operation note or to personally review Ms Chilton within about 30 days post-operatively. The protocols and systems in place at the hospital, including nurse-led follow-up and referral to the surgeon as needed, were reasonable and consistent with a responsible body of medical opinion. The judge below was entitled to find no breach of duty, and there was no procedural unfairness in admitting the expert's clarificatory statement. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kelly Chilton; Defendant/respondent: Michael Payne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (medical Negligence) / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, Appeals
Medical Negligence Tort Law Civil Procedure Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Procedural Fairness Standard of Care +2 more

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelly Chilton

Claimant/appellant

Michael Payne

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (medical Negligence) / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the surgeon owed a duty to record the date of next review on the operation note or elsewhere
  2. 2 Whether the surgeon owed a duty to personally review the patient within about 30 days post-operatively
  3. 3 Whether the judge below erred in finding no breach of duty by the surgeon

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that Mr Payne did not owe a duty to record the date of next review on the operation note or to personally review Ms Chilton within about 30 days post-operatively. The protocols and systems in place at the hospital, including nurse-led follow-up and referral to the surgeon as needed, were reasonable and consistent with a responsible body of medical opinion. The judge below was entitled to find no breach of duty, and there was no procedural unfairness in admitting the expert's clarificatory statement. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed