Leake v Targett

Leake v Targett

The defendant failed to competently interpret the March 2000 x-rays, failed to notice and record cage slippage, failed to inform the claimant and general practitioner, and failed to monitor the position of the cages, resulting in delayed revision surgery and avoidable foot drop. Judgment for the claimant.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Leake; Defendant: John Targett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Post Operative Care, Duty of Care, Causation, Damages
Medical Negligence Tort Post Operative Care Duty of Care Causation Damages

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

Parties

Andrew Leake

Claimant

John Targett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to competently interpret post-operative x-rays
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to notice and record cage slippage
  3. 3 Whether the defendant failed to inform the claimant and general practitioner of cage slippage

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to competently interpret the March 2000 x-rays, failed to notice and record cage slippage, failed to inform the claimant and general practitioner, and failed to monitor the position of the cages, resulting in delayed revision surgery and avoidable foot drop. Judgment for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay agreed damages of £60,000