Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor

Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor

The defendants were negligent in failing to advise the claimant of the surgical option for his conductive hearing loss and in misclassifying his condition as NIHL, which led to premature curtailment of his Army career, psychiatric injury, and financial losses. On the balance of probabilities, had the claimant been properly advised, he would have undergone surgery in 2006, resumed or continued a fulfilling Army career, and suffered no or minimal loss. Damages are awarded to reflect the losses flowing from these breaches.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Warren Constance; First Defendant: Ministry of Defence; Second Defendant: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against both defendants, with damages apportioned as specified.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Damages, Military Employment, Informed Consent, Loss of Earnings, Loss of Congenial Employment, Pension Loss
Tort Medical Negligence Employment Law Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Causation Damages Military Employment +4 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Warren Constance

Claimant

Ministry of Defence

First Defendant

Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care to the claimant by failing to advise him of surgical options for his hearing loss
  2. 2 Whether the misdiagnosis and misclassification of the claimant's hearing loss as noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) rather than conductive hearing loss (otosclerosis) constituted negligence
  3. 3 What losses flowed from the breaches of duty and how damages should be assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were negligent in failing to advise the claimant of the surgical option for his conductive hearing loss and in misclassifying his condition as NIHL, which led to premature curtailment of his Army career, psychiatric injury, and financial losses. On the balance of probabilities, had the claimant been properly advised, he would have undergone surgery in 2006, resumed or continued a fulfilling Army career, and suffered no or minimal loss. Damages are awarded to reflect the losses flowing from these breaches.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against both defendants, with damages apportioned as specified.

Orders

  • The Ministry of Defence shall pay the claimant £171,615.12 in damages.
  • The Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust shall be jointly liable with the MoD for £162,022.12 of the damages.