Penney & Ors v East Kent Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 3005 (16 November 1999)

Penney & Ors v East Kent Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 3005 (16 November 1999)

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the slides in question contained observable abnormalities that a reasonably competent cytoscreener at the relevant time could not have confidently classified as negative. The failure to refer such slides for further examination constituted a breach of duty. The judge correctly applied the standard of care, gave adequate reasons for preferring certain expert evidence, and did not err in law or fact. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 3005
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sandra Penney; Claimant/appellant: Helen Palmer; Claimant/appellant: Lesley Cannon; Defendant/respondent: East Kent Health Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, Bolam Test, Bolitho Qualification, Cytology Screening, Causation (not Determined)
Medical Negligence Tort Law Civil Procedure Standard of Care Expert Evidence Bolam Test Bolitho Qualification Cytology Screening +1 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Penney

Claimant/appellant

Helen Palmer

Claimant/appellant

Lesley Cannon

Claimant/appellant

East Kent Health Authority

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cytoscreeners were negligent in classifying cervical smear slides as negative when abnormalities were present
  2. 2 Whether the Bolam test or Bolitho qualification applied to the standard of care for cytoscreeners
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in preferring certain expert evidence and in his application of the law

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the slides in question contained observable abnormalities that a reasonably competent cytoscreener at the relevant time could not have confidently classified as negative. The failure to refer such slides for further examination constituted a breach of duty. The judge correctly applied the standard of care, gave adequate reasons for preferring certain expert evidence, and did not err in law or fact. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused