Shaw v Kovac & Ors

Shaw v Kovac & Ors

There is no legal basis for a separate award of damages for invasion of personal autonomy in negligence actions for failure to obtain informed consent; compensation is adequately provided by general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. The recusal application was misconceived and not supported by the test for apparent bias.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mrs Gabriele Shaw (Personal Representative of the Estate of William Ewan, Deceased); Respondent/defendant: Dr Jan Kovac; Respondent/defendant: University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Damages, Personal Autonomy, Recusal of Judges
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Tort Law Informed Consent Damages Personal Autonomy Recusal of Judges

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Gabriele Shaw (Personal Representative of the Estate of William Ewan, Deceased)

Appellant/claimant

Dr Jan Kovac

Respondent/defendant

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a novel head of damages for invasion of personal autonomy is recoverable in negligence for failure to obtain informed consent
  2. 2 Whether the judge should have recused himself for apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal basis for a separate award of damages for invasion of personal autonomy in negligence actions for failure to obtain informed consent; compensation is adequately provided by general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. The recusal application was misconceived and not supported by the test for apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No additional damages awarded for invasion of personal autonomy
  • Application for recusal of judges refused