Giles v Chambers [2017] EWHC 1661 (QB) (17 July 2017)

Giles v Chambers [2017] EWHC 1661 (QB) (17 July 2017)

The court found that the Claimant did not request high-definition, muscle-exposing liposuction but rather a modest, natural improvement. The Defendant failed to obtain informed consent for the procedure actually performed, removed an excessive amount of fat, and did not leave a sufficient subcutaneous fat layer, resulting in a grossly substandard outcome. The Defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a competent practitioner. The poor outcome, including physical deformity and psychiatric injury, was caused by the Defendant's breach of duty.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1661
Parties
Claimant: Tracey Giles; Defendant: Dr Alexandra Chambers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim (contract and Tort) / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed for the Claimant; Defendant found liable in negligence and breach of contract.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Causation, Damages, Expert Evidence Admissibility
Medical Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Clinical Negligence Informed Consent Standard of Care Causation Damages +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracey Giles

Claimant

Dr Alexandra Chambers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim (contract and Tort) / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What type of cosmetic surgery was requested and contracted for?
  2. 2 Was the Defendant negligent and/or in breach of duty in performing the surgery?
  3. 3 Did any breach cause or contribute to the poor outcome?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant did not request high-definition, muscle-exposing liposuction but rather a modest, natural improvement. The Defendant failed to obtain informed consent for the procedure actually performed, removed an excessive amount of fat, and did not leave a sufficient subcutaneous fat layer, resulting in a grossly substandard outcome. The Defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a competent practitioner. The poor outcome, including physical deformity and psychiatric injury, was caused by the Defendant's breach of duty.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for the Claimant; Defendant found liable in negligence and breach of contract.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the Claimant for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, psychiatric injury, and costs of remedial treatment.
  • Quantum to be assessed if not agreed.