Hague v British Telcommunications Plc (Immunotherapy : Reasonableness of Treatment : Private Dictionary Principle)

Hague v British Telcommunications Plc (Immunotherapy : Reasonableness of Treatment : Private Dictionary Principle)

The proposed new treatment (combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab) falls within the scope of 'second line immunotherapy treatment' as contemplated by the parties' agreement, based on both the express wording and the parties' mutually agreed definition evidenced by contemporaneous negotiation notes....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Douglas Edgard Hague; Defendant: British Telecommunications PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/personal Injury) / Judgment on Urgent Application for Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Claim allowed. Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Settlement Agreements, Medical Expenses Indemnity, Reasonableness of Medical Treatment, Mesothelioma Claims
Contract Law Personal Injury Law Interpretation of Settlement Agreements Medical Expenses Indemnity Reasonableness of Medical Treatment Mesothelioma Claims

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Douglas Edgard Hague

Claimant

British Telecommunications PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/personal Injury) / Judgment on Urgent Application for Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed new immunotherapy treatment falls within the scope of 'second line immunotherapy treatment' under the parties' settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether the proposed new treatment is reasonable and thus indemnifiable under the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed new treatment (combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab) falls within the scope of 'second line immunotherapy treatment' as contemplated by the parties' agreement, based on both the express wording and the parties' mutually agreed definition evidenced by contemporaneous negotiation notes. The recommendation of the Claimant's treating oncologist is objectively reasonable, and the Defendant cannot defeat indemnity by introducing alternative medical opinion where the agreed oncologist's recommendation is rational and not manifestly unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant.

Orders

  • The Defendant is obliged to indemnify the Claimant for the costs of the proposed combination immunotherapy treatment (ipilimumab and nivolumab) as recommended by his treating oncologist, pursuant to the agreement.
  • The Claimant to file and serve a revised Statement of Costs; the Defendant to respond in writing; costs to be summarily assessed on the papers unless a further hearing is requested.