ROGER JOHNSON v ANDREW WILLIAMS

ROGER JOHNSON v ANDREW WILLIAMS

The evidence was insufficiently cogent or compelling to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant caused a 3cm diameter defect to the Claimant’s medial retinaculum during surgery on 17th March 2017. The claim was not proved.

Parties
Claimant: Roger Johnson; Defendant: Andrew Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Burden of Proof
Medical Negligence Tort Breach of Duty Causation Burden of Proof

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Johnson

Claimant

Andrew Williams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Defendant cause a large tear/defect in the Claimant’s medial retinaculum on 17th March 2017 during surgery?
  2. 2 If so, was it negligent to have done so?

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was insufficiently cogent or compelling to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant caused a 3cm diameter defect to the Claimant’s medial retinaculum during surgery on 17th March 2017. The claim was not proved.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed