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 VASER liposuction but a more modest, natural result. The Defendant failed to obtain informed consent for the procedure performed, removed excessive fat, and did not leave a sufficient subcutaneous fat layer, resulting in deformity and psychiatric injury. The Defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable practitioner, and the poor outcome was caused by this negligence.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1661 (QB)
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; judgment for the Claimant on liability and causation.
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 negligence cause or contribute to the poor outcome?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant did not request high-definition VASER liposuction but a more modest, natural result. The Defendant failed to obtain informed consent for the procedure performed, removed excessive fat, and did not leave a sufficient subcutaneous fat layer, resulting in deformity and psychiatric injury. The Defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable practitioner, and the poor outcome was caused by this negligence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for the Claimant on liability and causation.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the Claimant (quantum to be assessed)
  • Defendant to pay Claimant's costs