Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB) (27 November 2018)

Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB) (27 November 2018)

Permission to rely on neurosurgical expert evidence is refused because the reports do not establish any neurosurgical link between the symptoms and the negligent surgery, add nothing of value to the existing expert evidence, and are unnecessary for the resolution of the issues. The references to the neurosurgical...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3276
Parties
Claimant: Miss Sharron Denise Hall; Defendant: Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Clinical Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Rely on Neurosurgical Evidence and Consequential Directions
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Costs, Permission to Rely on Evidence
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Case Management Costs Permission to Rely on Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Sharron Denise Hall

Claimant

Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Clinical Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Rely on Neurosurgical Evidence and Consequential Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be granted permission to rely on neurosurgical expert evidence under CPR Part 35
  2. 2 Whether consequential directions and costs adjustments should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to rely on neurosurgical expert evidence is refused because the reports do not establish any neurosurgical link between the symptoms and the negligent surgery, add nothing of value to the existing expert evidence, and are unnecessary for the resolution of the issues. The references to the neurosurgical reports must be removed from the Claimant's expert reports, and the Claimant must pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • References to Professor Marks' reports must be excised from the Claimant's expert reports and those reports re-served at the Claimant's expense.
  • Extensions of time granted to enable the Defendant to comply with previous directions.