Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors (3) [2018] EWHC 2715 (QB) (18 October 2018)

Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors (3) [2018] EWHC 2715 (QB) (18 October 2018)

Summary judgment was wrongly granted because the claimant had a credible expert supporting his case, and it was premature to conclude the claim was unarguable before expert evidence was exchanged and tested; the absence of a detailed expert report from the claimant did not justify summary judgment.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2715 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Barry Frederick Hewes; Respondent/defendant (1): West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust; Respondent/defendant (2): East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust; Respondent/defendant (3): Dr Pankaj Tanna
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Summary Judgment in Clinical Negligence Action / Appeal Against Summary Judgment Dismissing Claim Against 3rd Defendant
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Expert Evidence, Breach of Duty, Causation, CPR 24.2, CPR 35.4, Bolitho Principle
Clinical Negligence Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Expert Evidence Breach of Duty Causation CPR 24.2 CPR 35.4 +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Frederick Hewes

Appellant/claimant

West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Respondent/defendant (1)

East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Respondent/defendant (2)

Dr Pankaj Tanna

Respondent/defendant (3)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Summary Judgment in Clinical Negligence Action / Appeal Against Summary Judgment Dismissing Claim Against 3rd Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate before exchange of expert evidence in a clinical negligence claim
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a realistic prospect of establishing breach of duty against the 3rd Defendant (GP)
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a detailed expert report from the claimant justified summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was wrongly granted because the claimant had a credible expert supporting his case, and it was premature to conclude the claim was unarguable before expert evidence was exchanged and tested; the absence of a detailed expert report from the claimant did not justify summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of the 3rd Defendant is set aside.
  • Case to proceed to trial on breach of duty and causation.