Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors

Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors

The Third Defendant, Dr Tanna, acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion by referring the claimant to A&E rather than directly to the orthopaedic team. The claimant failed to provide credible evidence that no responsible body of general practitioners would have acted similarly. Therefore, the claim against Dr Tanna has no real prospect of success and summary judgment is granted in his favour.

Parties
Claimant: Barry Frederick Hewes; First Defendant: West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust; Second Defendant: East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust; Third Defendant: Dr Pankaj Tanna
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Third Defendant; claim against Dr Tanna struck out.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Clinical Negligence, Standard of Care, Causation
Tort Law Medical Negligence Summary Judgment Clinical Negligence Standard of Care Causation

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Frederick Hewes

Claimant

West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

First Defendant

East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Dr Pankaj Tanna

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Tanna breached his duty of care by failing to refer the claimant directly to the orthopaedic team, bypassing A&E
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success against the Third Defendant under the Bolam/Bolitho principles
  3. 3 Whether any alleged breach by Dr Tanna was causative of the claimant's injury

Ratio Decidendi

The Third Defendant, Dr Tanna, acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion by referring the claimant to A&E rather than directly to the orthopaedic team. The claimant failed to provide credible evidence that no responsible body of general practitioners would have acted similarly. Therefore, the claim against Dr Tanna has no real prospect of success and summary judgment is granted in his favour.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Third Defendant; claim against Dr Tanna struck out.

Orders

  • Claim against Dr Tanna dismissed
  • Costs to be determined as appropriate