Quaatey v Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 1296 (QB) (21 May 2020)

Quaatey v Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 1296 (QB) (21 May 2020)

The appeal was dismissed because there was no procedural irregularity in the hearing before Master Cook, the expert evidence did not support the allegations of negligence, and the claims were time-barred with no good reason for the delay. The claimant's own analysis of her medical records could not substitute for the required expert evidence.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1296 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Gifty Quaatey; Defendant/respondent: Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Order Striking Out Clinical Negligence Claim / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Limitation of Actions, Requirement for Expert Evidence, Consent to Medical Treatment
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Limitation of Actions Requirement for Expert Evidence Consent to Medical Treatment

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gifty Quaatey

Claimant/appellant

Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Order Striking Out Clinical Negligence Claim / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should have been struck out for lack of supportive expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should have been entered for the defendant due to limitation and evidential prejudice
  3. 3 Whether there was a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the hearing before Master Cook

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no procedural irregularity in the hearing before Master Cook, the expert evidence did not support the allegations of negligence, and the claims were time-barred with no good reason for the delay. The claimant's own analysis of her medical records could not substitute for the required expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Summary judgment for defendant